This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-42
entitled 'Motorcycle Safety: Increasing Federal Funding Flexibility
and Identifying Research Priorities Would Help Support States' Safety
Efforts' which was released on November 14, 2012.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
November 2012:
Motorcycle Safety:
Increasing Federal Funding Flexibility and Identifying Research
Priorities Would Help Support States' Safety Efforts:
GAO-13-42:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-13-42, a report to Congressional Committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
According to NHTSA, per vehicle mile traveled in 2010, motorcyclists
were about 30 times more likely to die in a traffic crash than
passenger car occupants. States have implemented various strategies to
address the factors contributing to motorcycle crashes and fatalities,
and NHTSA has assisted these efforts through guidance, grants, and
research. GAO reviewed: (1) what is known about the cost of motorcycle
crashes; (2) the factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes and
fatalities, and strategies states are pursuing to address these
factors; and (3) the extent to which NHTSA assists states in pursuing
strategies that address these factors. GAO reviewed studies, analyzed
documents and data from NHTSA and other sources, and interviewed
officials in the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and 16 states
as well as representatives of various stakeholder organizations. GAO
selected states that were geographically diverse and that had varying
fatality rates, laws and policies, and ridership levels.
What GAO Found:
GAO estimated that the total direct measurable costs of motorcycle
crashes—costs that directly result from a crash and that can and have
been measured—were approximately $16 billion in 2010. However, the
full costs of motorcycle crashes are likely higher because some
difficult-to-measure costs—-such as longer-term medical costs-—are not
included. Victims and their families, as well as society—-including
employers, private insurers, healthcare providers, government, and
others—bear these costs. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) estimated that society bears about three-
quarters of the measurable costs of all motor vehicle crashes. Society’
s share of the costs of motorcycle crashes may be similar or higher,
in part because injuries from these crashes are generally more severe
than those from other motor vehicle crashes.
Various factors contribute to motorcycle crashes and states pursue a
range of strategies to address them. These factors include alcohol
impairment; speeding; lack of a license, training, or riding skills;
and lack of motorist awareness of motorcycles. Another factor, lack of
helmet use, does not affect the likelihood of a crash but increases
the risk of a fatality when a crash occurs. State strategies include:
licensing approaches, training programs, enforcement of alcohol
impairment and speed limit laws, efforts to improve motorcyclist
safety awareness and motorist awareness, and helmet-use laws. Laws
requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets are the only strategy
proved to be effective in reducing motorcyclist fatalities, but some
opposition to such laws exists, and only 19 states currently have
them. According to NHTSA, proven approaches used in some other highway
safety efforts, such as combining strong enforcement with public
education, may hold promise for improving motorcycle safety.
NHTSA helps states develop and implement motorcycle safety strategies
through various efforts. It has provided states with guidance,
outreach, and training which according to state officials, has
improved their ability to address motorcycle safety. From fiscal years
2006 to 2012, NHTSA awarded $45.9 million in motorcyclist safety
grants to states; Congress has allowed these funds to be used for
motorcyclist training and motorist awareness efforts only. However,
major studies on motorcycle safety issues have recommended a range of
additional strategies for reducing crashes and fatalities, some of
which NHTSA has identified as a high priority for states to pursue.
These strategies include increasing helmet use and motorcyclist safety
awareness, and educating police about motorcycle safety in order to
strengthen enforcement. NHTSA and state officials noted that expanding
the allowable uses for the grants would better enable states to use
such strategies. NHTSA has conducted research-—totaling $7.3 million
in the last 5 fiscal years-—to identify new and evaluate existing
state strategies. For example, one new study will identify factors and
programs that may be related to higher rates of helmet use in states
that do not require all motorcyclists to wear helmets. NHTSA does not
have a current plan to guide its motorcycle safety research efforts
but intends to develop one by spring 2013. Given its limited funding
for research, such a plan provides an opportunity for NHTSA to
identify research priorities, based on gaps in knowledge about the
effectiveness of motorcycle safety strategies and the types of
strategies it has identified as a high priority or promising for
states to pursue.
What GAO Recommends:
Congress should consider expanding the strategies for which NHTSA’s
motorcyclist safety grants can be used to give states more flexibility
in how to use these funds. In addition, GAO recommends that NHTSA
identify research priorities for motorcycle safety that address gaps
in knowledge about the effectiveness of state strategies, particularly
those strategies it has identified as high priority or promising. DOT
officials agreed to consider this recommendation and provided
technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-42]. For more
information, contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834 or
flemings@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
The Costs of Motorcycle Crashes to Society and Individuals Are
Significant:
States Are Addressing Some of the Factors That Contribute to Crashes
and Fatalities through Various Strategies, but Effectiveness Is
Unclear:
NHTSA Supports States' Motorcycle Safety Programs, but Funding
Flexibility and New Research Priorities Would Enhance Efforts:
Conclusions:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Types of Direct Measurable Motor Vehicle Costs Estimated in
2002 NHTSA Study:
Table 2: Types of State Motorcycle Safety Strategies:
Table 3: NHTSA Research and Development on Strategies to Improve
Motorcycle Safety, Fiscal Year 2012:
Figures:
Figure 1: Example of a Crash Involving an Automobile and Motorcycle:
Figure 2: Motorcyclist Fatality Rate per 100,000 Registered
Motorcycles, 1991 to 2010:
Figure 3: Distribution of Estimated Direct Measurable Costs of
Motorcycle Crashes, 2010:
Figure 4: Example of a Poster Used to Encourage Motorist Awareness:
Figure 5: Helmet Use Laws in the United States as of October 2012:
Figure 6: Examples of Non-Compliant and DOT-Compliant Helmets:
Abbreviations list:
BAC: blood alcohol concentration:
CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
FARS: Fatality Analysis Reporting System:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act:
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act:
A Legacy for Users:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 14, 2012:
The Honorable John Rockefeller:
Chairman:
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Patty Murray:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan Collins:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tom Latham:
Chairman:
The Honorable John W. Olver:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
In 2010, an estimated 95,000 motorcycle crashes occurred in the U.S.
and 4,423 of these crashes were fatal.[Footnote 1] Motorcyclists are
involved in fatal crashes at higher rates than drivers of other types
of motor vehicles, both per registered vehicle and vehicle miles
traveled. In 2010, while motorcycles accounted for only about 3
percent of all registered vehicles, they were involved in about 15
percent of all fatal vehicle crashes. Not only can motorcycle crashes
result in injury to or death of the victims, but they can impose costs
for medical treatment, property damage, and loss of productivity.
Various factors, such as alcohol impairment, have been identified as
contributing to the occurrence of such crashes, while others,
particularly the lack of helmet use, affect the likelihood of a
fatality when a crash occurs. States have responsibility for
developing and implementing strategies--such as training programs for
motorcyclists and laws requiring helmet use--to address motorcycle
safety. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
the federal agency that assists states in pursuing strategies to
address the factors contributing to motorcycle crashes and fatalities
through various activities, including providing guidance, outreach,
and training, administering grants, and sponsoring research.
We conducted this work for the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations.[Footnote 2] The Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation also requested that we conduct
such a study. In this report, we:
1. determine what is known about the costs of motorcycle crashes;
2. identify factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes and to
fatalities when crashes occur, and strategies states are pursuing to
address these factors; and:
3. examine the extent to which NHTSA assists states in pursuing
strategies that address these factors.
To determine what is known about the costs of motorcycle crashes, we
reviewed studies on these costs, including the amount and types of
costs that crashes impose and who pays those costs. Because existing
cost estimates either only covered specific types of costs or
pertained to all vehicle types, we developed an estimate of the total
direct measurable costs[Footnote 3] of motorcycle crashes in 2010. We
used data developed in a 2002 NHTSA study, which provided estimates of
direct measurable costs of all motor vehicle crashes in 2000 for
various categories of costs, such as medical costs and costs
associated with loss of market productivity (lost wages).[Footnote 4]
To arrive at our estimate of costs specifically for motorcycle crashes
in 2010, we used inflation indices to convert NHTSA's cost estimates
to 2010 dollars and 2010 motorcycle crash data to extricate costs
attributable solely to motorcycle crashes. To identify the factors
that contribute to motorcycle crashes and fatalities and strategies
that states are pursuing to address these factors, we conducted
interviews with officials from NHTSA, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and
stakeholder organizations involved in motorcycle safety, including the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the Governors
Highway Safety Association, the National Association of State
Motorcycle Safety Administrators, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation,
and the American Motorcyclist Association. We also conducted
interviews with and reviewed documentation from state officials
responsible for motorcycle safety in 16 states. We selected these 16
states to include a range of fatality rates, varying types of
motorcycle safety laws and policies, varying levels of motorcycle
ridership, and geographic diversity.[Footnote 5] We analyzed data from
NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for calendar years
1991 to 2010 to identify characteristics of fatal crashes. In
addition, we conducted a literature review to obtain information about
the factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes and fatalities and
determine the extent of knowledge about the effectiveness of
motorcycle safety strategies used by states. We included in our review
studies that we identified based on certain selection criteria,
including those authored or provided to us by federal and state
agencies and organizations we interviewed and other studies published
in the last 10 years.[Footnote 6]
To examine the extent to which NHTSA assists states in pursuing
strategies that address factors contributing to motorcycle crashes and
fatalities, we reviewed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),[Footnote
7] the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21),
[Footnote 8] relevant portions of the United States Code, and federal
regulations to determine NHTSA's responsibilities and authority
related to motorcycle safety. We reviewed documentation and
interviewed officials in NHTSA headquarters and regional offices to
determine what NHTSA has done to identify and promote motorcycle
safety strategies for use by states, including guidance, outreach, and
training; providing grants; and conducting research. We obtained views
of state officials we interviewed on NHTSA's efforts and determined
the extent to which these efforts address research gaps we identified
as well as high priority motorcycle safety strategies identified by
NHTSA, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, NTSB, CDC, and the
Transportation Research Board.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 to November 2012
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further
details on our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.
Background:
Motorcycle crashes are more likely to be fatal than other types of
vehicle crashes. Of the estimated 5.4 million motor-vehicle crashes
that occurred in the U.S. in 2010, less than 1 percent resulted in at
least one fatality, while almost 5 percent of the 95,000 motorcycle
crashes in 2010 resulted in at least one fatality. When a crash
occurs, motorcycle riders are much more vulnerable than passengers of
other vehicles. Unlike a motorcyclist, a passenger vehicle occupant is
protected by the car's metal frame and generally by a seat belt (as
required by law), and usually airbags for the front seats.[Footnote 9]
As a result, according to NHTSA, motorcyclists were about 30 times
more likely to die in a traffic crash than passenger car occupants per
vehicle mile traveled in 2010.[Footnote 10]
Figure 1: Example of a Crash Involving an Automobile and Motorcycle:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: CDC.
[End of figure]
Over the last two decades, the number of fatalities of passenger
vehicle occupants as a result of crashes has decreased, while the
number of motorcyclist fatalities has increased. From 1991 to 2010,
fatalities of passenger vehicle[Footnote 11] occupants dropped from
30,776 to 22,187, while motorcyclist fatalities rose from 2,806 to
4,502--a 60 percent increase.[Footnote 12] Much of the increase in
motorcyclist fatalities is related to an increase in motorcyclists on
the road. From 1991 to 2010, motorcycle registrations in the U.S.
increased from about 4.2 million in 1991 to 8.2 million in 2010--a 97
percent increase. When looking at the number of fatalities per
registered vehicle for motorcycles, fatality rates have declined over
the last few years (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Motorcyclist Fatality Rate per 100,000 Registered
Motorcycles, 1991 to 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Motorcyclist fatality rate (occupant fatalities per 100,000 registered
vehicles):
Year: 1991: 67.1%;
Year: 1992: 58.9%;
Year: 1993: 61.6%;
Year: 1994: 61.8%;
Year: 1995: 57.1%;
Year: 1996: 55.8%;
Year: 1997: 55.3%;
Year: 1998: 59.1%;
Year: 1999: 59.8%;
Year: 2000: 66.7%;
Year: 2001: 65.2%;
Year: 2002: 65.3%;
Year: 2003: 69.2%;
Year: 2004: 69.8%;
Year: 2005: 73.5%;
Year: 2006: 72.4%;
Year: 2007: 72.5%;
Year: 2008: 68.5%;
Year: 2009: 56.4%;
Year: 2010: 54.8%.
Source: GAO analysis of FHWA and FARS data.
[End of figure]
Because motorcycle enthusiasts are a diverse group of people,
motorcycle crashes and fatalities affect a wide demographic. Men still
make up an overwhelming proportion of riders, but ridership among
women is increasing. With regard to age, motorcyclist fatalities are
not concentrated among younger riders. As older riders who rode in
their youth increasingly return to motorcycling, fatalities among
older motorcyclists have increased. From 2001 to 2010, riders 35 and
older constituted more than half of all motorcyclist fatalities. That
proportion has steadily increased from just over 50 percent in 2001 to
66 percent in 2010. In fact, the largest number of fatalities in 2010
was in the 45-54 age group.
NHTSA, states, and, to some extent, local governments, have a role in
improving motorcycle safety. NHTSA aims to reduce deaths, injuries,
and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes, including
motorcycle crashes, through the efforts of its headquarters and 10
regional offices. NHTSA does so primarily through grants to state
governments meant to support state and local safety programs. As part
of that effort, NHTSA headquarters conducts research on motorcyclist
behavior and safety strategies and provides guidance, outreach, and
training to states. NHTSA headquarters is also responsible for
evaluating those programs, collecting data, and promulgating
regulations. NHTSA's regional offices monitor states' spending and
provide assistance to states' motorcycle safety programs.
Each state must have a highway safety program that is approved by the
Secretary of Transportation and in accord with uniform guidelines
issued by the Secretary.[Footnote 13] Under these guidelines, states
are expected to develop a centralized motorcycle safety program, among
other things, and to implement projects to reach the goals and
objectives that reflect their states' demographics and needs. States'
motorcycle safety programs should include:
* a motorcycle licensing system that provides among other components,
educational information and penalties for violations of licensing
requirements;
* a state motorcycle rider education program;
* safety communication campaigns; and:
* data on the frequency and types of motorcycle crashes in their state.
Also, each state should ensure that programs addressing impaired
driving include an impaired-motorcyclist component.
Congress has also taken steps to support states' efforts. In 2005,
SAFETEA-LU established a $25 million motorcyclist safety-grant program
to encourage states to adopt and implement programs to reduce the
number of crashes involving motorcyclists. States received the first
year of these grants at the end of fiscal year 2006.[Footnote 14] To
be eligible to receive this grant, a state had to meet certain
criteria, including implementing a statewide training program for
motorcycle riders and an awareness program for motorists.[Footnote 15]
Funds granted under the program could be used for motorcyclist
training and motorist awareness programs, such as improving training
curriculums, delivering training, recruiting or retaining motorcyclist
safety instructors, and establishing and conducting public awareness
and outreach programs. States were not required to provide matching
funds. Additionally, states could use the State and Community Highway
Safety Grant Program for motorcycle safety efforts, if those efforts
are included in their state highway safety plan. This grant program
provides highway safety program funds for states through a formula
based on each state's population and public road miles.[Footnote 16]
In July 2012, the President signed MAP-21 into law, amending section
405 of title 23, United States Code, to establish National Priority
Safety Program grants, including motorcycle safety grants formerly
authorized by SAFETEA-LU section 2010.[Footnote 17] MAP-21 authorized
continuing funding for these grants,[Footnote 18] at about half the
SAFETEA-LU funding level, through the end of fiscal year 2014. States
may continue to use their State and Community Highway Safety Grant
funding for motorcycle safety efforts.
The Costs of Motorcycle Crashes to Society and Individuals Are
Significant:
Studies indicate that the costs of motorcycle crashes are significant,
but have only estimated specific types of these costs. We conducted
our own analysis, using data from a 2002 NHTSA study on the costs of
all motor vehicle crashes as well as some additional data, and
estimate that the direct measurable costs of motorcycle crashes--those
costs that directly result from a crash and that can and have been
measured--were approximately $16 billion in 2010. However, accurately
determining the full costs is difficult because some--such as long-
term medical costs and intangible costs related to emotional pain and
suffering--are difficult to measure. Thus, the full costs of
motorcycle crashes are likely higher than our estimate. Victims and
their families as well as society--including employers, private
insurers, healthcare providers, government, and others--bear these
costs. NHTSA estimated that society bears about three-quarters of the
measurable costs of all motor vehicle crashes. Society's share of the
costs of motorcycle crashes may be similar or higher, in part because
injuries from these crashes are more severe.
Overall Costs Are Substantial, but Some Cost Elements Are Difficult to
Measure:
Studies we identified on the costs of motorcycle crashes indicate that
the costs are significant, but the studies estimated only specific
types of direct measurable costs. Direct measurable costs are those
costs directly resulting from a crash that can and have been measured.
One study, conducted by CDC and Pacific Institute for Research and
Evaluation, estimated three categories of costs associated with
motorcycle crashes: medical costs, costs associated with the loss in
market productivity (lost wages), and costs associated with the loss
in household productivity (costs of hiring someone to perform
household tasks). The study estimated that the total for these cost
categories for all motorcycle crashes nationwide in 2005 was $12
billion.[Footnote 19] A number of the studies we identified estimated
only the motorcycle crash victims' medical costs. One such study
estimated that the total hospital charges for the initial treatment of
motorcyclists injured in traffic crashes in Florida in 2010 was $348
million.
Lacking a comprehensive study of the costs of motorcycle crashes, we
conducted our own analysis and estimate that the direct measurable
costs of motorcycle crashes in 2010 were about $16 billion. To develop
our estimate, which is a rough approximation of these costs, we began
with a 2002 NHTSA study that provided a comprehensive examination of
the direct measurable costs of all types of motor vehicle crashes in
2000, estimating nine categories of costs (see table 1).[Footnote 20]
We used data developed in the 2002 NHTSA study, which provided
estimates for each of these cost categories across various levels of
injury severity. We updated these cost estimates to 2010 values by
adjusting for inflation. We then applied the updated motor vehicle
crash cost estimates to NHTSA's 2010 data on motorcycle crash
incidence, which included a breakdown of crashes by severity
classifications. This provided our aggregate estimate of the cost of
motorcycle crashes in 2010.[Footnote 21] (See appendix I for further
description of our methodology.) NHTSA is in the process of updating
its motor vehicle crash cost estimates and, as part of that effort,
plans to separately calculate the direct measurable costs associated
with motorcycle crashes.[Footnote 22]
Table 1: Types of Direct Measurable Motor Vehicle Costs Estimated in
2002 NHTSA Study:
Type of cost: Medical;
Description: Costs of all medical treatments, including those during
ambulance transport. It includes costs of emergency room, inpatient
costs, follow-up visits, physical therapy, rehabilitation,
prescriptions, prosthetic devices, and home modification.
Type of cost: Emergency services;
Description: Costs of police and fire department response services.
Type of cost: Loss in market productivity;
Description: Total lost wages of the victim.
Type of cost: Loss in household productivity;
Description: Costs associated with lost productive household activity,
valued at the market price for hiring another person to accomplish the
same tasks.
Type of cost: Insurance administration;
Description: Administrative costs of processing insurance claims and
defense attorney costs.
Type of cost: Workplace;
Description: Costs of workplace disruption that are due to the loss or
absence of an employee.
Type of cost: Legal;
Description: Legal fees and court costs of civil litigation resulting
from crashes.
Type of cost: Travel delay;
Description: Value of travel time delay for all road users as a result
of a crash.
Type of cost: Property damage;
Description: Value of vehicles, cargo, roadways and other items
damaged in a crash.
Source: NHTSA, Economic Impact Report, 2002.
[End of table]
Our estimated $16 billion in direct measurable costs of motorcycle
crashes can be broken down according to the nine different types of
costs identified by the NHTSA study. As shown in figure 3, loss in
market productivity was the largest cost element, constituting 44
percent of the estimated total direct measurable costs. This category
is followed by medical costs (18 percent), household productivity
costs (14 percent), legal costs (9 percent), and insurance
administration costs (7 percent). The remaining 8 percent is divided
among workplace costs, travel delay costs, and costs resulting from
property damage.
Figure 3: Distribution of Estimated Direct Measurable Costs of
Motorcycle Crashes, 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Loss of market productivity: 44%;
Medical costs: 18%;
Loss of household productivity: 14%;
Legal costs: 9%;
Insurance administration: 7%;
Property damage: 5%;
Travel delay costs: 2%;
Workplace costs: 1%;
Emergency services: less than 1%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
In addition to our overall estimate that the direct measurable costs
of motorcycle crashes were about $16 billion in 2010, we found that
crash costs varied dramatically based on injury severity. In 2010,
82,000 motorcyclists were injured in motorcycle crashes, and these
injuries ranged from minor to very severe; the direct measurable costs
for non-fatal crashes ranged from $2,500 for the most minor injury to
about $1.4 million for the most severe injury, on average.[Footnote
23] As noted previously, in 2010, 4,502 motorcyclists died in
motorcycle crashes. The average cost for a fatal crash was estimated
to be about $1.2 million. That a fatality can cost less than the most
severe injury is partly because severe injuries can result in total
incapacitation. Some victims, such as those with severe brain
injuries, cannot be productive and require ongoing care and medical
expenses.
Although prior studies and our analysis suggest that the costs of
motorcycle crashes are significant, it is difficult to determine the
full costs with accuracy because some types of costs are difficult to
measure. For example, the treatment for serious injury can be long and
costly, but follow-up analyses are conducted only for a few years to
calculate long-term medical costs. Also, other costs of long-term
injury consequences such as change in employment and living status
cannot be fully measured. Moreover, intangible costs--such as
emotional pain and suffering of the victim and family members
resulting from a changed quality of life of the victim--are also
significant but are difficult to measure in financial terms. Thus, the
full costs of motorcycle crashes are likely higher than our estimate
because we could not account for such difficult to measure costs.
Also, we did not account for the costs of unreported crashes.
Individuals as well as Society Bear the Costs of Motorcycle Crashes:
Victims and their families bear many of the direct measurable costs of
motorcycle crashes. They may pay medical expenses that are not covered
by insurance, suffer the loss of income of the victim and lost
productivity at home, incur the costs of family members caring for the
victim, and suffer losses for property damage not covered by
insurance. Because motorcycle accidents are often severe, victims
might not return to work for some time or not at all. According to a
2006 NHTSA study based on a survey of motorcycle crash victims who
entered inpatient rehabilitation, of those employed at the time of the
crash, 51 percent were no longer employed at the time of discharge.
[Footnote 24]
In addition to victims and their families, other members of society--
employers, private insurers, healthcare providers, government, and
others--bear a significant amount of the direct measurable costs of
motorcycle crashes. Both state and federal governments pay some of
these costs through Medicaid and other assistance programs. Private
insurers often bear significant costs for covered treatment--which are
largely paid through their customer base. Healthcare providers--such
as hospitals--may bear some unpaid charges. The victims' co-workers
and employers may need to temporarily work overtime or hire and train
new employees to cover the work of lost employees and other
administrative costs of personnel changes. Even road users can be
affected if travel delays result during the emergency response to and
cleanup of the crash.
NHTSA's 2002 study, based on data on all motor vehicle crashes in
2000, estimated that three-quarters of the direct measurable costs
appear to be borne by society. Although NHTSA's analysis of the
societal burden associated with crashes was based on all types of
motor vehicle crashes, there is some evidence that society's share of
costs for motorcycle crashes may be similar or even higher, for
example:
* Motorcyclists have a greater likelihood of a more severe injury in a
crash compared to other motorists. Based on a 2008 NHTSA study, about
43 percent of motorcyclist crash victims suffered moderate to critical
injuries when involved in a crash.[Footnote 25] In contrast, based on
NHTSA's 2002 study, less than 8 percent of all motorists suffered from
such injuries in a crash.[Footnote 26] As previously noted, direct
measurable costs increase substantially with the degree of accident
severity. Furthermore, according to a 2008 report by the Pacific
Institute for Research and Evaluation, for each category of injury
severity, government cost per crash is higher on average for
motorcycle crash victims than for all motor vehicle crash victims.
[Footnote 27]
* Motorcyclists may insure against fewer risks than their motor
vehicle driver counterparts. According to a 2003 report by the Pacific
Institute for Research and Evaluation conducted for NHTSA, legal and
lender insurance requirements force most motorists to insure against a
broad range of risks, but the requirements for motorcycle insurance
coverage are usually less stringent.[Footnote 28] In particular, the
study found that, for the insurance companies included in the study,
only 15 percent of motorcycle insurance policies in 1999 included
personal injury protection or coverage of the motorcyclist's own
medical expenses, while 98 percent of the insurance policies for other
vehicles included these types of coverage. Our review did not identify
any more recent studies on this topic. However, we did identify
estimates, provided by Florida state officials that, in 2010, 51
percent of the costs of motorcyclist hospitalizations and emergency
department visits in their state were not covered by commercial
insurance. Also, we identified a 1999 study of uninsured vehicles in
California that found that 66 percent of motorcycles were uninsured
compared with only 19 percent for automobiles.[Footnote 29] To the
extent that motorcyclists have less insurance coverage than other
motor vehicle drivers, a greater proportion of medical costs
associated with motorcycle crashes may need to be paid from public
funds.
With respect to difficult-to-quantify costs, determining the share
paid by victims and their families versus society is difficult.
NHTSA's estimates of the shares of all motor vehicles crash costs
borne by individuals and society only covered direct measurable costs,
and society's share of the difficult-to-quantify costs of motorcycle
crashes is unclear. For example, while victims and their family are
likely to bear most, if not all, of the intangible or nonfinancial
costs in terms of emotional pain and suffering resulting from loss in
quality of life of the victim or from psychic repercussions of
victim's injury, society may pay a significant portion of the victims'
long-term rehabilitation costs. A 2006 NHTSA study found that
inpatient rehabilitation costs for motorcycle injuries averaged
$13,200 per patient for the year 2002 ($16,000 in 2010 dollars) and
that almost 20 percent of this was paid by public funds.[Footnote 30]
A 1988 study pointed out that since many insurance policies typically
do not cover long-term rehabilitation or nursing home needs, most of
these additional charges are paid for by public funds, such as through
Medicaid.[Footnote 31]
States Are Addressing Some of the Factors That Contribute to Crashes
and Fatalities through Various Strategies, but Effectiveness Is
Unclear:
Various factors--including alcohol impairment; speeding; lack of a
license, training, or riding skills; and lack of motorist awareness of
motorcycles on the road--contribute to motorcycle crashes; another
factor, lack of helmet use, contributes to the likelihood of a
fatality when a crash occurs. States pursue a range of strategies to
address these factors, including licensing approaches, training
programs, law enforcement, efforts to improve motorcyclist safety
awareness and motorist awareness, and helmet-use laws. Laws requiring
all motorcyclists to wear helmets are the only strategy proven to be
effective in reducing fatalities, but only 19 states have such laws.
The effectiveness of the other strategies in reducing motorcycle
crashes and fatalities is unclear because research has been limited
and results of studies have been mixed or uncertain. However,
according to NHTSA officials, approaches that have been proven to be
effective in some other highway safety efforts--such as combining
strong enforcement with public education to reduce driver alcohol
impairment generally--may hold promise for improving motorcycle safety.
Various Factors Contribute to Motorcycle Crashes and Fatalities:
Factors Contributing to a Crash:
Various factors contribute to the likelihood that a motorcyclist will
crash. Often, a combination of factors can work together to increase
the likelihood.[Footnote 32] While the extent of evidence concerning
each factor's importance varies, the four factors identified most
frequently by the federal officials, selected state officials, and
stakeholder organizations that we spoke to were alcohol impairment;
speeding; lack of a motorcycle license, training, or skills; and lack
of motorist awareness of motorcyclists.[Footnote 33]
Alcohol impairment is associated with a large portion of fatal
motorcycle crashes. In 2010, 28 percent of motorcycle drivers involved
in fatal crashes had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 grams
per deciliter--the legal limit in all states for operating a vehicle--
or higher. This is compared to 23 percent of drivers of passenger
vehicles.[Footnote 34] A BAC level at or above this limit impairs the
judgment of motorcyclists, making them more likely to engage in risky
behaviors such as speeding. Some studies have also found that
motorcyclists who are intoxicated are less likely to wear
helmets.[Footnote 35] In addition to judgment, alcohol also affects
the riding skills of the motorcyclist. A NHTSA study assessing the
effects of alcohol on rider performance showed that motorcyclist
riding performance was significantly impaired at a BAC level of 0.08,
and somewhat impaired at a lower BAC level of 0.05.[Footnote 36] Drug
impairment was also cited by some state officials as a factor
contributing to crashes.[Footnote 37]
Speeding is a major factor contributing to motorcycle crashes,
according to federal and state officials and stakeholder groups we
interviewed. NHTSA has estimated that more than a third of
motorcyclist fatalities involve speeding. However, quantifying the
contribution of speeding to crashes and fatalities is a challenge,
because information about the speed of the motorcycle at the time of
the crash often is unreliable. Officials in two states told us that
certain sections of highways are popular sites for speeding by
motorcyclists. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, riders of the increasingly popular "supersport" motorcycles,
which can reach higher speeds than other motorcycles,[Footnote 38]
tend to be younger than 30 and are more likely to be involved in
crashes where speed was a factor.
Lack of a motorcycle license, training, or skills were cited by
federal and state officials and stakeholders as significant factors
associated with crashes and fatalities. Licensing programs measure the
readiness of motorcyclists to drive safely and can encourage or
require that beginning riders take training prior to receiving a
license. Twenty-two percent of motorcycle riders involved in fatal
crashes in 2010 were driving their vehicles without a valid motorcycle
license, compared to 12 percent for passenger vehicles. Agency
officials in eight of the states we covered in our review reported
that some crashes occur as a result of riders departing from their
lane, making improper turns, or following the vehicle in front too
closely. Such riding behaviors may be because of lack of skill or
experience. In addition, agency officials in 10 states reported that
older motorcyclists returning to motorcycling after years of not
riding have contributed to crashes in their state. Some of these
officials explained that many of these older motorcyclists have
maintained their motorcycle licenses for a number of years because
they are automatically renewed, their riding skills have decreased,
and they are not required to demonstrate their skills when returning
to riding. This is a possible explanation for the previously mentioned
statistics on fatalities among older "returning" riders.
Lack of motorist awareness of motorcyclists is a major factor
contributing to crashes, according to many of the federal and state
officials and stakeholders we interviewed. In 2010, 54 percent of all
motorcyclist fatalities were the result of multi-vehicle crashes. A
main problem cited by some of those who noted this factor is that
drivers make a left turn without noticing an oncoming motorcyclist
coming from the opposite direction. Distracted driving can contribute
to this problem. According to NHTSA officials, there are no studies to
support the extent to which motorists are at fault in two-vehicle
crashes with motorcycles because, in part, fault is very challenging
to definitively determine. Related to this issue, motorcyclists who do
not wear bright colors can be less conspicuous to drivers.
Some additional, less frequently cited factors can also contribute to
the likelihood of a motorcycle crash. According to NHTSA officials,
judgment is an overriding factor that affects the likelihood of crash
involvement. Lack of good judgment about actions related to safety can
lead to driving a motorcycle while under the influence of alcohol,
speeding, or aggressive driving. In addition, the design and function
of the motorcycle can affect the likelihood of a crash. According to
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, anti-lock braking systems
on motorcycles reduce the likelihood of a crash. Some have also cited
road conditions as a main factor that can lead to a crash. Problems
include uneven road surfaces and rural roads with narrow or no
shoulders. According to FHWA officials, while roadway conditions do
contribute to crashes, it is currently unknown how frequently this
occurs.[Footnote 39] Other factors cited include encounters with
wildlife (especially deer) and weather conditions.
Factors Affecting the Severity of Crash Outcomes:
Other factors that we identified do not affect the likelihood of a
crash occurring but can affect the severity of injuries when a crash
does occur.
Lack of helmet use, most notably, is an important factor contributing
to an increased risk of fatality or serious brain injury when a
motorcycle crash occurs. Several studies have estimated that helmet
use reduces motorcyclist fatality risk, with reductions ranging from
34 to 39 percent.[Footnote 40] Further, according to NHTSA, the latest
studies have found that helmets reduce the incidence of motorcycle
rider brain injuries by 41 to 69 percent.[Footnote 41] Head injuries
account for a significant percentage of motorcyclist injuries
resulting in fatality. NHTSA has estimated that helmets saved the
lives of 1,550 motorcyclists in 2010.[Footnote 42] DOT has established
standards for motorcycle helmets to ensure a certain degree of
protection in a crash.[Footnote 43] Use of helmets that are not
compliant with these standards can pose a risk to riders, as wearing
non-compliant helmets is associated with a higher likelihood of
receiving a head injury when a crash occurs.
Other factors can also affect the outcome of crashes. According to
NHTSA officials, protective clothing can help prevent "road rash"
[Footnote 44] as a result of a crash, which, in extreme cases, can
result in death. They noted, however, that little research has been
performed on the effects of such clothing on injuries and fatalities.
An important factor in victims' survival after a crash is the
availability of emergency services. CDC, a state agency, and an
association cited crashes on rural roads as being especially
treacherous, given the longer time required to get the victims to
medical care.
Except for alcohol impairment and helmet use, the relative importance
of these various factors contributing to crashes and fatalities is not
well understood. Challenges to determining the contribution of these
factors to crashes and fatalities include unavailable or unreliable
information about key factors such as the speed of the vehicle, driver
behavior, road conditions, and various precipitating factors. Also,
factors can be interrelated, making it difficult to determine causal
relationships and relative contributions to risk. Several studies
currently under way are expected to provide much better information on
the causes of motorcycle crashes.[Footnote 45]
States Have Implemented Various Strategies to Address These Factors:
States use a range of strategies to address the factors that
contribute to motorcycle crashes and fatalities. The importance of
these factors varies among states, and accordingly, states pursue
varying strategies--including some innovative ones--to address the
factors that are of greatest importance to them. Furthermore, states
vary in terms of fatality rates, ridership, and the length of the
riding season, and therefore some may choose to carry out more
extensive motorcycle safety efforts than others. However, at a
minimum, all states that we included in our review had some type of
motorcycle licensing and training program in place and included
motorcyclists in their overall efforts to enforce alcohol impairment
and speed limit laws. Some strategies aim to prevent crashes and other
strategies aim to reduce the severity of crashes when they occur (see
table 2).
Table 2: Types of State Motorcycle Safety Strategies:
Strategies to prevent crashes:
* Licensing;
* Training;
* Enforcing alcohol impairment and speed limit laws;
* Efforts to increase motorcyclist safety awareness;
* Efforts to increase motorist awareness of motorcyclists.
Strategies to reduce the severity of crash outcomes:
* Helmet laws;
* Enforcing use of DOT-compliant helmets;
* Promoting voluntary helmet use.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Strategies for preventing crashes:
Licensing. According to NHTSA, all states require motorcyclists to
obtain a motorcycle license in order to ride.[Footnote 46] Licensing
programs aim to ensure that motorcyclists have the minimum knowledge
and skills needed to operate a motorcycle safely. All of the 16 states
that we covered in our review required a written test and
demonstration of riding skills to obtain a license. Some states
imposed additional requirements, particularly training requirements,
for younger riders. Ten of the 16 states that we covered in our review
require riders under a certain age to successfully complete a basic
rider course before obtaining a motorcycle license. Two states that we
covered--Texas and Florida--require all riders to successfully
complete a basic rider course to be eligible for a motorcycle license.
[Footnote 47]
Utah has an innovative approach to motorcycle licensing with a tiered-
licensing system that was implemented in 2008. Utah provides four
types of motorcycle licenses based on the size--or more specifically,
the engine size--of the motorcycle motorcyclists test on. To obtain a
license to operate a motorcycle with a certain engine size, and thus
more or less power, motorcyclists must demonstrate their ability to
ride that size of motorcycle during the licensing test.[Footnote 48]
The idea behind the program was to encourage new riders to learn to
ride on smaller, lighter bikes before moving on to large, powerful
motorcycles. Also, Utah officials told us that this strategy helps
address the problem of riders testing on a motorcycle that was smaller
than the one they intended to ride.
Some states that we included in our review have taken steps to
increase the number of licensed riders. For example, 4 of the 16
states that we covered in our review--California, Maryland, Wisconsin,
and Washington--have used databases to identify individuals with a
registered motorcycle but no motorcycle license. Letters are then sent
to these individuals describing the potential consequences of not
obtaining a license. The officials that we interviewed said that these
programs were somewhat successful in increasing the number of
individuals with a motorcycle license.
Training. Motorcycle-training programs aim to provide motorcyclists
with the knowledge and skills necessary to safely operate a
motorcycle. Most states use the training curriculum developed by the
Motorcycle Safety Foundation.[Footnote 49] All of the states that we
included in our review offer basic rider courses for new riders and
advanced courses to encourage experienced riders to refresh their
skills and learn advanced-riding techniques. Some states operate
training programs while others rely on private contractors.
Some state officials that we interviewed described their training
programs as being innovative. For example, New Hampshire offers a
training course specifically for returning riders, which, as noted
previously, can be a contributing factor in crashes and fatalities.
According to state officials in New Hampshire, returning riders are a
challenge because many have retained their motorcycle license during
the period when they were not riding and they are not required to take
additional training or testing before they begin riding again.
In addition to developing training courses, states have used various
strategies to encourage riders to take training. According to a
Governors Highway Safety Association survey of state motorcycle
programs conducted in 2007, at least 33 states offer a waiver for the
riding-skills portion of the licensing test for individuals who
complete a basic skills course. Some states have tried other
strategies. For example, Wisconsin has purchased a mobile-training
facility called the Transportable High-End Rider Education Facility
that travels around the state to encourage motorcycle riders to take
formal training, among other things. Likewise, Texas has purchased two
trailers that are used to deliver training to riders in rural areas
who do not have access to local training facilities. Officials in
Wisconsin and Texas told us that they have received favorable
reactions from motorcyclists when they take the trailers to motorcycle
rallies and other events.
Enforcing alcohol impairment and speed limit laws. Enforcement
strategies are designed to 1) identify motorcyclists who are not
adhering to the states' laws and 2) increase law enforcement officers'
awareness of laws and issues that affect motorcycle safety. All of the
states that we included in our review include motorcycles in their
overall alcohol-impairment and speed-limit enforcement efforts. For
example, Maryland and Missouri have used helicopters for surveillance
in areas that are known to be popular for speeding. Iowa and Florida
target law enforcement efforts in areas identified as having a large
number of crashes. However, less than half of the states included in
our review mentioned specific enforcement strategies aimed at
motorcyclists who are driving while impaired or speeding. Some states
have developed materials to educate law enforcement officers on
motorcycle specific issues, such as identifying impaired riders.
States used a number of methods to educate law enforcement officers
about issues related to motorcycle riding, including training courses,
pamphlets, and reference guides listing motorcycle violations.
However, according to some state and law enforcement officials,
enforcement efforts are limited because of state laws, limited
resources, and complaints by motorcycle groups. Some states have "no
chase" laws that prohibit officers from chasing speeding motorcycles
to avoid accidents with other motorists. According to one NHTSA
regional official, some states, such as Texas, do not allow sobriety
checkpoints, so detecting and stopping alcohol-impaired motorcyclists
can be difficult.[Footnote 50] Additionally, some state and law
enforcement officials that we interviewed told us that states lack
funding to train law enforcement officers on motorcycle-specific
issues. As a result, officers may be hesitant to enforce laws related
to motorcycles, because they may not be familiar with all of the
specific requirements and may lack some of the training that would
help them determine if a rider is complying with laws. Furthermore,
some NHTSA regional, state, and law enforcement officials whom we
interviewed said that states are often reluctant to focus enforcement
on motorcyclists because of complaints by motorcycle groups that they
are being unfairly targeted.
Efforts to increase motorcyclist safety awareness. These strategies
aim to encourage motorcyclists to ride safely and take actions, such
as wearing brightly colored clothing, to increase their visibility to
other motor vehicle drivers. The strategies address a number of
factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes and fatalities,
including alcohol impairment, speeding, lack of rider conspicuity, and
lack of licensing, training, and skills. Nearly all of the state
officials that we interviewed described making such efforts, including
using billboards, electronic messaging, and printed materials, or
using contact among state motorcycle safety officials, law
enforcement, and motorcyclists to encourage safety awareness among
motorcyclists.[Footnote 51] Several state and law enforcement
officials whom we interviewed emphasized that this contact can be
particularly valuable in developing relationships with motorcyclists
during rallies and other events, so that motorcyclists will be more
receptive to safety messages. One state official, however, noted that
some members of the motorcycling community are high risk takers and
more resistant to safety messages.
During our interviews, some state officials identified some of their
approaches as being innovative. For example, Florida produced a peer-
to-peer video to convince motorcyclists to ride safely based on
research that riders are more receptive to messages from their peers
than from police or others. In addition, starting in 2008, Colorado
kicked off its Live to Ride campaign. The campaign is a comprehensive
safety program aimed at motorcyclists. Each year the campaign focuses
on a different theme, such as the importance of training or riding
unimpaired.
Efforts to increase motorist awareness of motorcyclists. Motorist
awareness strategies educate and remind drivers of other motor
vehicles to be aware of motorcycles on the road and to drive safely
near motorcycles. Nearly all of the states that we included in our
review reported having a strategy to increase motorists' awareness of
motorcycles. Some states use informational campaigns that deliver
messages, such as media messages and promotional materials (See figure
4). These may be provided by NHTSA through its Share the Road campaign
that reminds drivers to look out for motorcycles. All of the states in
our review observe May as motorcycle safety month during which they
use media to broadcast public awareness messages to remind drivers of
other motor vehicles to look out for motorcyclists.
Figure 4: Example of a Poster Used to Encourage Motorist Awareness:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Figure text:
Look Twice.
Save a Life.
Source: Florida DOT.
[End of figure]
Some state officials identified some of their approaches as being
innovative. For example, California and Texas use electronic
billboards to display motorist awareness messages. Other states, such
as Arizona and Wisconsin, partner with motorcyclist groups to teach
students about motorcyclist awareness during driver education courses.
In addition, while it is not mandatory to discuss motorcyclist
awareness in drivers' education classes, California has updated its
drivers' education handbook to include a discussion about motorcycles.
Strategies for reducing the severity of crashes:
Helmet laws. States have one of two types of helmet laws: universal
helmet laws (helmets required for all riders) or partial helmet laws
(helmets required for certain riders, most often age 17 and under).
Currently, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 19
states have universal helmet laws and 28 states have partial helmet
laws (see figure 5). For example, California and New York have
universal helmet laws requiring all riders to wear helmets while
Arizona and Wisconsin have partial helmet laws that only require
riders age 17 and under to wear helmets. Two states, Florida and
Michigan, with partial helmet laws allow motorcyclists over the age of
21 to ride without a helmet if they have a certain level of medical
insurance coverage.[Footnote 52] Three states--Illinois, Iowa, and New
Hampshire--have no laws requiring helmet use by riders.
Figure 5: Helmet Use Laws in the United States as of October 2012:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
No law:
District of Columbia;
Illinois;
Iowa;
New Hampshire.
Partial law:
Alaska;
Arizona;
Arkansas;
Colorado;
Connecticut;
Delaware;
Florida;
Hawaii;
Idaho;
Indiana;
Kansas;
Kentucky;
Maine;
Michigan;
Minnesota;
Montana;
New Mexico;
North Dakota;
Ohio;
Oklahoma;
Pennsylvania;
Rhode Island;
South Carolina;
South Dakota;
Texas;
Utah;
Wisconsin;
Wyoming.
Universal law:
Alabama;
California;
Georgia;
Louisiana;
Maryland;
Massachusetts;
Mississippi;
Missouri;
Nebraska;
Nevada;
New Jersey;
New York;
North Carolina;
Oregon;
Tennessee;
Vermont;
Virginia;
Washington;
West Virginia.
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Map Resources.
[End of figure]
In part due to controversy surrounding motorcycle helmet laws, states
have a history of enacting and repealing them over the years.[Footnote
53] According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, no state
has enacted a universal helmet law since Louisiana did in 2004. NHTSA
and state officials whom we interviewed said that it was unlikely that
any state with a partial helmet-use law or no helmet law would
consider strengthening requirements for helmet use. In 2011, according
to a recent report by the CDC, bills were introduced to change or
repeal helmet laws in 10 of the 20 states that had universal helmet
laws at the time,[Footnote 54] and in 2012, Michigan changed its
universal helmet law to a partial helmet law. Many government entities
and safety organizations--like NHTSA, CDC, and the Motorcycle Safety
Foundation--promote helmet use, citing its benefits. The CDC also
cites the social and economic costs of motorcycle crashes and
fatalities. However, some motorcycle groups, like the American
Motorcycle Association, advocate helmet use but oppose mandating it.
Some motorcycle groups maintain that these mandates violate
motorcyclists' personal liberties and their right to assume the risk
associated with riding without a helmet. They also point out that
helmet laws do nothing to prevent crashes and that resources are
therefore better spent on crash prevention efforts such as training
and motorist awareness.
Enforcing use of DOT-compliant helmets. States with universal helmet
laws face challenges in getting riders to wear DOT-compliant helmets.
According to NHTSA's National Occupant Protection Use Survey conducted
in 2011, 12 percent of riders in states with universal helmet laws
used non-compliant helmets.[Footnote 55] In states with universal
helmet laws, some states have used innovative strategies to address
this issue. For example, officials in California told us that they
have developed a video that law enforcement officers distributed to
motorcycle clubs across the state. The video takes an educational and
informational approach to emphasize the importance of wearing a
compliant helmet. Also, New York officials told us New York has used
safety checkpoints to verify compliance with safe motorcycle-operating
practices, including use of compliant helmets. State officials told us
that these checkpoints combine education with enforcement. Officers
distribute information about safety practices but enforce state laws
if violations are found.[Footnote 56] A challenge that law enforcement
officers face in states with universal helmet laws is that it can be
difficult to identify and cite riders wearing non-compliant helmets. A
Governors Highway Safety Association survey of state motorcycle
programs found that in 2007, nine states with universal helmet laws
provided training to law enforcement officers to help them identify
non-compliant helmets.
Figure 6: Examples of Non-Compliant and DOT-Compliant Helmets:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Non-Compliant M+Helmets (3);
DOT-Compliant Helmets (2).
Source: NHTSA.
Note: DOT-compliant helmets have an energy-absorbing layer between the
comfort liner and outer shell and include a chin strap with sturdy
rivets; furthermore, they generally weigh about 3 pounds.
[End of figure]
Promoting voluntary helmet use. In states that have a partial helmet
law or no helmet law, finding ways to encourage riders to wear helmets
can be challenging. According to the NHTSA survey mentioned above, in
2011, use of DOT-compliant helmets was much lower in these states than
in states with universal helmet laws: 50 percent versus 84 percent.
Officials in some states try to promote helmet use through education.
For example, officials in Iowa--a state with no helmet law--told us
that they host an annual conference for motorcycle riders to discuss
motorcycle safety issues. One of the recent conference themes was
centered on the use of proper protective gear, including helmets.
Officials in several other states, however, told us that there was
such strong sentiment from motorcyclists in their state about their
right to choose whether to wear a helmet that they do not promote
helmet use.
Effectiveness of Most Strategies Used by States Is Unclear:
We found, based on our review of studies, that the effectiveness of
most of the strategies used by states in reducing motorcycle crashes
and fatalities is unclear. Although helmet laws are controversial and
some states have repealed their universal helmet laws in recent years,
such laws are the only strategy proven, by a number of studies, to be
effective in reducing motorcyclist fatalities. The effectiveness of
most other strategies on reducing motorcycle crashes or fatalities is
uncertain or unknown because evidence is limited, mixed, or not of a
high quality.[Footnote 57] In identifying studies to include in our
research review, we used selection criteria aimed at ensuring that we
included only high quality studies that provided valid results.
[Footnote 58]
Some newer strategies and strategies that have been proven to be
effective in addressing other highway safety issues, such as teen
driver safety, may hold promise for improving motorcycle safety.
However, while some of the states that we included in our review are
trying innovative approaches, few of these states have conducted their
own evaluations of these approaches. Some state officials noted that
their state had not conducted evaluations of its motorcycle safety
strategies because of resource constraints or the difficulty in
carrying out such studies. Some state officials expressed concerns to
us over gaps in knowledge about the effectiveness of motorcycle safety
strategies. Some noted that this knowledge gap makes it difficult to
decide how to target safety resources given state budget constraints.
Strategies for Preventing Crashes:
Licensing. Although licensing is an important component of a state's
motorcycle safety program and lack of a valid license by many
motorcyclists is a problem, we found that limited research has been
done on the effectiveness of specific types of licensing strategies on
preventing motorcycle crashes or fatalities. Randomized controlled
studies of Maryland's and California's efforts to increase motorcycle
licensing by comparing vehicle registration and driver licensing files
found that this method did increase the number of licensed
motorcyclists in both states, but most (almost 90 percent) unlicensed
motorcyclists remained unlicensed.[Footnote 59] Also, the strategy did
not appear to have an effect on crash risk.[Footnote 60] We identified
only one study that evaluated the effect of motorcycle licensing laws
on motorcycle driver mortality in the United States. Results of this
study, which covered the years 1997 through 1999, suggested that some
stricter licensing requirements used by states, such as those that
require a skill test for obtaining a permit, were associated with
lower motorcyclist fatality rates compared to other states that did
not have these requirements.[Footnote 61] NHTSA has noted in its 2011
Countermeasures That Work report, which summarizes current research on
the effectiveness of various strategies for addressing major highway
safety problems, that the effectiveness of current licensing
approaches on motorcycle crashes has not been evaluated.[Footnote 62]
According to NHTSA's Countermeasures that Work report, research has
found that graduated licensing systems can be highly effective in
reducing teen driver crashes and fatalities.[Footnote 63] Based on
these results, NHTSA has identified graduated driver's licensing as a
promising strategy for motorcycle safety. Graduated driver's licensing
is a three-phase system for beginning drivers, consisting of a
learner's permit allowing driving only under supervision, an
intermediate license allowing unsupervised driving with restrictions,
and a full license. While 49 states have such systems in place for
licensing to operate motor vehicles, according to NHTSA officials no
state currently has such a system in place for licensing motorcyclists.
Training. Although motorcycle training is important for teaching
riding skills needed to operate a motorcycle safely and a number of
stakeholders we interviewed cited lack of training or skills as a
factor contributing to crashes, results of studies on the
effectiveness of motorcycle training programs in reducing crashes and
fatalities are uncertain. For example, findings of a 2008 study that
examined the effects of various alcohol and traffic policies--
including mandatory rider education programs--on motorcycle safety in
the continental U.S. from 1990 to 2005 suggested that mandatory rider
education programs were associated with a significant reduction in non-
fatal injury rates, but did not find these programs to influence
fatality rates.[Footnote 64] A 2007 study of motorcyclist training in
Indiana[Footnote 65] and a 1998 study of such training in California
[Footnote 66] both found that trained riders did not have lower crash
rates than untrained riders. Various methodological limitations of
evaluations, which we and others[Footnote 67] have reviewed, make it
difficult to determine the effectiveness of training programs.
[Footnote 68] In addition, effectiveness of training can vary across
states, and even within states.
NHTSA has also reported that based on existing research, the
effectiveness of motorcycle training is uncertain. According to NHTSA
officials, the reason why studies have not been able to link basic
motorcyclist training with crash involvement may be because the
training often teaches riders how to operate their vehicle; it does
not necessarily produce the good judgment that would lead to safe
riding behavior. Also, the officials pointed out that studies of teen
drivers have found that some teens actively choose to drive in an
unsafe manner, contrary to their driver education.[Footnote 69]
Enforcing alcohol-impairment and speed-limit laws. Overall, there has
been little research on the effectiveness of strategies focused on
enforcement of alcohol-impairment or speed-limit laws on motorcycle
safety specifically. However, according to NHTSA's report
Countermeasures that Work, research has shown that enforcement and
sanctions--such as sobriety checkpoints, extensive patrolling of
certain locations for a set period of time, and impounding vehicles--
are effective for reducing instances of impaired driving and crashes
for motor vehicles generally. Also, automated enforcement--such as
cameras that detect speeding and crossing red lights--has been shown
to be effective in reducing crashes because of speeding and aggressive
driving by all types of motor vehicles.[Footnote 70] We identified six
studies on motorcycles that met our selection criteria and examined
the association between different types of laws and sanctions related
to impaired driving or speeding and motorcyclist fatalities.[Footnote
71] These studies provided mixed levels of evidence on the
effectiveness of these approaches. For example, findings from a 2003
study of alcohol impairment laws suggest that these laws are
associated with lower overall motorcycle fatality rates,[Footnote 72]
but findings from another study did not show this association.
[Footnote 73] An additional study examined the effect of state speed
limits and found that speed limits on rural interstates were
associated with lower rates of non-fatal motorcycle injuries.
[Footnote 74]
NHTSA's Countermeasures That Work report states that some enforcement
and sanction strategies to reduce alcohol-impaired driving may be
especially effective for motorcyclists, while other strategies may be
less effective. According to NHTSA officials, law enforcement
activities for motorcycles are analogous to those for passenger
vehicles, so high visibility enforcement, which has been shown to be
effective for passenger vehicles, should work for motorcycles. High
visibility enforcement combines intensive enforcement of a specific
traffic safety law--such as using sobriety checkpoints to enforce the
0.08 BAC limit--with extensive communication, education, and outreach
informing the public about the enforcement activity. We have
previously reported that high visibility enforcement campaigns have
been found effective in reducing two primary risk behaviors--not using
safety belts and impaired driving--associated with fatal vehicle
crashes.[Footnote 75] NHTSA has also noted that vehicle impoundment as
a sanction for impaired driving is a promising strategy based on a
study that showed that motorcyclists are highly concerned about the
safety and security of their motorcycles.
Efforts to increase motorcyclist safety awareness and motorist
awareness of motorcyclists. Our research review did not identify any
studies of the effectiveness of strategies to increase motorcyclist
safety awareness that met our selection criteria. We also did not
identify any studies of the effectiveness of strategies to increase
other driver awareness of motorcycles that met our criteria.[Footnote
76] NHTSA has also found, as noted in its Countermeasures That Work
report, that these areas have not been evaluated. NHTSA officials told
us that based on prior studies on efforts in other highway safety
areas--such as efforts to increase seat belt use--to influence driver
behavior through education alone, the effectiveness of motorcycle
safety strategies using outreach and communications alone is likely to
be low.
Strategies for Reducing the Severity of Crashes:
Helmet laws. In contrast to the lack of information on the impacts of
strategies to prevent crashes, a number of studies have demonstrated
that universal helmet laws are an effective strategy for mitigating
the severity of crashes when they do occur. Such laws have been shown
to be associated with lower motorcycle fatality rates. We identified
nine studies that met our selection criteria and examined the
association between motorcycle helmet laws and motorcyclist
fatalities. All nine studies provided evidence that universal helmet
laws significantly decrease the rate of motorcyclist fatalities,
[Footnote 77] for example:
* One nationwide study for 1975-2004 found that universal helmet laws
were associated with at least a 22 percent reduction in motorcyclist
fatalities.[Footnote 78]
* A study, using data from the 48 contiguous states for 1988 to 2005,
found that state laws mandating helmets reduced fatalities by 27
percent.[Footnote 79]
Research has also shown universal helmet-use laws to effectively
increase the rate of helmet use among motorcyclists. In states without
universal use helmet laws or where such laws were repealed, helmet use
rates were lower than in states with universal helmet-use laws.
Studies we reviewed of observed helmet use rates in four states that
repealed their universal helmet laws estimated helmet use of 90
percent or higher when helmet-use laws were in effect, compared to 66
percent or lower following the repeals.
Enforcing Use of DOT-Compliant Helmets and Promoting Voluntary Helmet
Use. We did not identify any studies of the effectiveness of
enforcement efforts aimed at increasing the use of compliant helmets
or of programs to promote motorcycle helmet use in states without
universal helmet laws. NHTSA has also noted in its Countermeasures
That Work report that these strategies have not been evaluated.
Sound evaluations of motorcycle safety strategies are challenging to
carry out, a situation that may help explain why research on some
strategies has been limited and why results of some studies have been
mixed or uncertain. NHTSA officials told us that evaluating the
effects on crashes and fatalities of strategies other than helmet laws
has been challenging, particularly since there are fewer motorcycles
than passenger cars or trucks. Also, the complexity of the
relationship between various factors and existing strategies that may
affect crashes and fatalities makes it difficult to isolate the
effects of a single strategy. Although limited evidence exists on the
effectiveness of particular strategies states are using for addressing
motorcycle safety and the results of studies are sometimes mixed or
uncertain, the use of a range of strategies is important. As we
discuss in the next section, major studies on motorcycle safety issues
and NHTSA have emphasized that states should approach motorcycle
safety with a comprehensive range of strategies to address the various
factors that contribute to crashes and fatalities.[Footnote 80]
NHTSA Supports States' Motorcycle Safety Programs, but Funding
Flexibility and New Research Priorities Would Enhance Efforts:
NHTSA has provided guidance, outreach, and training to help states
improve their motorcycle safety programs. Although NHTSA provides
grants for states to use for these programs, Congress imposed limits
on the grants, allowing states to use them only for motorcyclist-
training and motorist-awareness activities. NHTSA has also conducted
research on motorcycle safety strategies, but has not researched or
developed plans to research certain strategies that it has identified
as promising or a high priority for improving motorcycle safety.
NHTSA Has Provided Guidance, Outreach, and Training to States:
NHTSA has provided states with a variety of guidance, including
written guidelines and technical assistance that identifies and
promotes strategies states can use to address the key factors
contributing to crashes and fatalities. In particular, NHTSA's 2011
Countermeasures That Work report, discussed previously, provides
states with information on various highway safety strategies available
to them--including motorcycle safety strategies--and what is known
about the effectiveness of these strategies. NHTSA intends this
information to help states select safety strategies that have been
proved effective through research or that have shown promise.[Footnote
81] In addition, NHTSA has:
* Issued guidelines for state highway safety programs that recommend
that states adopt a comprehensive approach to addressing motorcycle
safety.[Footnote 82] Strategies that the guidance encourages include
those discussed in our report. Conducted assessments of individual
state safety programs based on these guidelines, at the request of
individual states.[Footnote 83]
* Developed model standards for states and curriculum developers to
incorporate into motorcycle training courses.
* Developed guidelines for states regarding motorcyclist licensing, in
cooperation with the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators,[Footnote 84] and is working with the association to
revise a manual that states can provide to motorcyclists receiving
their licenses.
* Conducted campaigns on motorist awareness and impaired-riding
prevention that make available marketing materials, such as radio
advertisements and posters that states can use in their motorcycle
safety programs.
NHTSA also partnered with the Motorcycle Safety Foundation and others
to produce a key report, the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety, in
2000 and has produced subsequent guidance based on this report.
[Footnote 85] The report contained 82 recommendations aimed at
improving motorcycle safety, about half of which applied to states and
communities.[Footnote 86] In 2006, NHTSA produced a guide to provide
states with specific steps for implementing the recommendations that
applied to the state.[Footnote 87] NHTSA is currently updating this
guide. In 2010, in response to a National Transportation Safety Board
2007 recommendation, NHTSA prioritized the recommendations based on
impact, cost, time, and obstacles and produced a set of 22 high
priority recommendations, including 10 aimed at states and
communities. The agency is in the process of developing an action plan
for states based on these 10 recommendations.[Footnote 88]
In addition to guidance, NHTSA has provided outreach to states.
According to NHTSA officials, staff in NHTSA's regions work with the
states daily, helping them to identify highway safety problems and
countermeasures, such as enforcing individual state laws or finding
ways to increase helmet use. However, according to NHTSA officials,
some motorcyclist advocacy groups have been critical when NHTSA has
promoted helmet use. NHTSA regional officials told us that they do not
actively seek the passage of universal helmet laws by states, but they
do appear before state legislatures to discuss the benefits of helmet
use, when invited to speak.[Footnote 89] Some NHTSA regions have
collaborated on motorcycle safety conferences. For example, in 2010,
three regions held a conference for their states to discuss motorcycle
safety issues. Additionally, NHTSA regional officials we met with told
us that they periodically hold conference calls or meet with states in
their respective regions to discuss motorcycle safety issues and share
information.
Finally, NHTSA has provided motorcycle safety-related training courses
for state officials and law enforcement agencies. One such course is
for state highway safety staff responsible for setting up and managing
state motorcycle-safety programs. This course is currently available
electronically and, according to state officials, has provided
insights and tools to help them better understand their
responsibilities. NHTSA also developed and provided training on
motorcycle safety for instructors at law enforcement training
academies in 2011 and 2012. State law enforcement officials stated
that this training helped educate law enforcement personnel on
motorcycle safety and their role in reducing motorcycle crashes. NHTSA
expects to deliver the law enforcement training electronically in
fiscal year 2013 to increase its availability to law enforcement
personnel.
In general, state and local officials told us that they were satisfied
with the assistance they receive from NHTSA. Officials we interviewed
in 11 of the 16 states we covered noted that NHTSA efforts--including
guidance, outreach, and training--were helpful.
NHTSA's Motorcyclist Safety Grants May Only Be Used for Training and
Motorist Awareness Strategies:
Although NHTSA provides funding to states through the Motorcyclist
Safety Grant Program, the funding can only be used for limited
purposes. As noted previously, this program, established under SAFETEA-
LU, provides grants to states that can be used to support (1)
motorcyclist training and (2) motorist awareness efforts.
Specifically, states can use grant program funds to improve training
curricula, deliver training, and recruit or retain motorcycle safety
instructors, as well as for public awareness and outreach programs to
improve motorist awareness. The new surface transportation
legislation, MAP-21, continued the program with similar requirements,
but at a reduced annual amount. States were awarded a total of $45.9
million from fiscal years 2006 through 2012, including $7 million in
both fiscal years 2011 and 2012.[Footnote 90] The funding awarded to
individual states during these fiscal years ranged from $100,000 to
just over $500,000, although most states were awarded from $100,000 to
$200,000. Under MAP-21, the total grant amount exclusively authorized
for motorcycle safety has been reduced by almost 50 percent, to
roughly $4 million annually.
To pursue strategies other than motorcyclist training and motorist
awareness, states can use other sources of funding, including other
federal grants. In particular, states have used some State and
Community Highway Safety Grant Program funds for motorcycle safety
efforts and, as noted previously, may continue to do so under MAP-21.
[Footnote 91] According to NHTSA funding data, however, states used a
small portion of this grant funding--about $16.5 million of the total
of $1.13 billion states received (about 1.5 percent)--on motorcycle
safety efforts from fiscal years 2006 through 2011.[Footnote 92]
Officials in five states told us that they are reluctant to use State
and Community Highway Safety Grant funding within their state for
motorcycle safety efforts because allocating such funding for
motorcycle safety would reduce the amount available for their state's
other highway safety program priorities, such as teen driver safety,
aggressive and distracted driving, and safety belt enforcement.
Officials in two states noted that competition for the use of these
grant funds is rigorous; consequently officials would prefer not to
use the moneys to fund some desired motorcycle safety activities, such
as training police officers on motorcycle safety issues. Officials in
another state indicated that although they do use these grant funds
for motorcycle-related enforcement, they must prioritize their limited
resources and cannot provide this funding at the level they believe is
needed. Officials in one state said the state has elected not to use
State and Community Highway Safety Grant funding for programs
specifically targeted to motorcyclists.
States may also use state funding to pursue motorcycle safety
strategies although this funding can also be limited. Officials in
eight states told us that state resource constraints limit the ability
to fund motorcycle safety activities in their states. Additionally,
officials in two NHTSA regional offices as well as a highway safety
association and an association representing state motorcycle-safety
agencies told us that limited state funding for motorcycle safety
efforts is a problem. In particular, they noted that obtaining funding
for enforcement efforts is challenging for states. Some states do have
dedicated funding available for motorcycle safety; however, much of
this funding is devoted to training. State officials in 13 of the
states that we included in our review told us that their motorcycle
safety programs receive funding from fees for motorcycle-related
registration or licensing, training, or penalties. For example,
according to officials in Florida, New Hampshire, and Utah, amounts
ranging from $1 to $5 from each motorcycle registration are directed
toward training programs as well as other motorcycle safety purposes.
The limitations on spending Motorcyclist Safety Grant funds affect
states' ability to pursue a range of strategies or try new approaches
to motorcycle safety. GAO has reported on the potential benefits of
allowing states more flexibility in using NHTSA's safety incentive
grant programs. Specifically, we reported that the structure of
highway safety grants since SAFETEA-LU did not always allow states
sufficient flexibility to direct funding toward safety priorities as
identified in highway safety plans.[Footnote 93] We also reported that
flexibility could become a key issue in the future as emerging issues
become more critical.[Footnote 94]
Furthermore, as previously noted, major studies on motorcycle safety
issues as well as NHTSA have identified the need for states to
approach motorcycle safety with a comprehensive range of strategies.
In particular, the highest-priority recommendations of the National
Agenda for Motorcycle Safety recently identified by NHTSA recommend a
range of strategies states should pursue to improve motorcycle safety.
These recommendations include:
* using effective strategies to increase use of DOT-compliant helmets,
* improving motorcyclist training and licensing,
* educating police about motorcycle safety issues in order to
strengthen enforcement,
* increasing the safety awareness of motorcyclists (including
discouraging them from mixing alcohol and other drugs with
motorcycling and encouraging them to increase conspicuity), and:
* promoting voluntary helmet use.
Guidelines for states on addressing motorcycle safety prepared by
NHTSA and the Transportation Research Board also recommend various
strategies to address motorcycle safety.[Footnote 95] Additionally,
both the National Transportation Safety Board and CDC have highlighted
increasing the use of DOT-compliant helmets as a high priority for
saving lives on the nation's highways.[Footnote 96]
The restrictions in how states can use their motorcyclist safety
grants may impede states' ability to fund some motorcycle safety
activities they believe are needed. In fiscal year 2013 budget
estimates, NHTSA proposed amending the Motorcyclist Safety Grant
Program to provide states additional flexibility. Specifically, NHTSA
proposed amending the program so that states could use these funds to
promote the use of DOT-compliant motorcycle helmets, increase efforts
to reduce impaired riding, and reduce the number of improperly
licensed motorcyclists. According to a NHTSA official, expanding the
possible uses for the grants would allow states to develop and
implement additional countermeasures specific to the motorcycle safety-
related problems in their states. Officials we interviewed in 14 of
the 16 states said that the grant program is too restrictive. State
officials cited a variety of activities that they would enhance or
undertake in order to improve motorcycle safety in their state if they
could use the grant funding for those purposes. These include
activities related to enforcement as well as alcohol impairment,
training law enforcement officers, increasing safety awareness through
outreach to motorcyclists,[Footnote 97] enforcing the use of compliant
helmets, and promoting voluntary helmet use. One state with a
universal helmet law explained that the state needs more funding to
train police officers about motorcycle safety issues, especially how
to work with motorcyclists to increase safety awareness or how to
recognize non-compliant helmets. According to a highway safety
association official, each state's motorcycle safety efforts would
benefit greatly from convening a summit of stakeholders to develop a
state strategic plan for motorcycle safety, but funding for such an
activity is generally not available.
NHTSA Has Conducted Some Studies on Motorcycle Safety Strategies, but
Gaps Exist:
NHTSA has conducted motorcycle safety research on various topics and
has used the results to provide states and others with information on
factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes and fatalities, the
effectiveness of existing strategies, and new strategies that may have
potential to improve motorcycle safety. Funding allocated to
motorcycle safety research from fiscal years 2007 to 2012 totaled $7.3
million, of which $2.5 million was for research conducted in fiscal
year 2012.[Footnote 98] Conducting research is part of NHTSA's overall
mission. According to NHTSA officials, states do not have sufficient
resources to evaluate the strategies they are using and expecting them
to do so is not realistic.
Some of NHTSA's research addresses the factors that contribute to
motorcycle crashes and fatalities. In fiscal years 2008 through 2011,
NHTSA's research on factors included studies on the effects of alcohol
on motorcycle-riding skills and on motorcycle rider braking control
behavior, among other topics. One study currently under way--the
Instrumented On-Road Study of Motorcycle Riders--will use
instrumentation mounted on motorcycles to record information about
motorcyclists' riding behaviors, such as acceleration, position in
lane, and braking. According to NHTSA officials, participants will
also provide information about their attitudes, personality, and risk-
taking behaviors before the instrumentation is installed. According to
NHTSA officials, this study could result in a broad range of findings
that could provide additional information on factors that could
contribute to motorcycle crashes and fatalities and possibly identify
improvements needed in strategies, such as training, rider
conspicuity, road infrastructure, or the design of motorcycles. NHTSA
also plans to use this information to determine relationships between
riders' attitudes and crash involvement as well as other riding
behaviors. NHTSA expects to complete this study in the fall of 2015.
Other NHTSA research focuses on strategies that states currently use
or on new strategies being considered. In fiscal years 2008 through
2011, NHTSA's research on strategies included a study on youth
motorcycle-related brain injury by helmet law type, an expert panel on
evaluating motorcycle training and a demonstration program to educate
motorcyclists about the dangers associated with operating a motorcycle
while under the influence of alcohol.[Footnote 99] NHTSA's research on
strategies in fiscal year 2012 could help to address some of the
current limitations in knowledge, discussed previously, about the
effectiveness of motorcycle safety strategies that states have used or
could use. This research emphasized identifying ways to improve law
enforcement efforts, training, licensing, and promotion of helmet use
(see table 3). According to NHTSA officials, this research should
produce new information about the effectiveness of high visibility
enforcement, which NHTSA has identified as a promising strategy. It
should also produce new information on an innovative method to
increase licensing among motorcyclists that includes outreach to law
enforcement and the motorcyclist community. Additionally, NHTSA's
research should provide information that may lead to improvements in
training for motorcyclists. Finally, NHTSA recently initiated a
research project to determine whether there are states without
universal helmet-use laws that have higher helmet-use rates than other
states without such laws and to identify factors and programs that may
be related to higher helmet use in these states. Such information
could help identify ways to promote voluntary use of helmets in the 31
states that do not have universal helmet laws.
Table 3: NHTSA Research and Development on Strategies to Improve
Motorcycle Safety, Fiscal Year 2012:
Title: Motorcycle High Visibility Enforcement Demonstrations
(Partnership with Georgia State Patrol);
Actual or planned completion: Spring 2013;
Type of strategy studied: Law enforcement related to alcohol
impairment, licensing, and use of DOT-compliant helmets.
Title: Study to Improve Crash Avoidance Skills[A];
Actual or planned completion: Winter 2013;
Type of strategy studied: Training.
Title: Effect of Sight Distance Training on Motorcycle Skills;
Actual or planned completion: Winter 2013;
Type of strategy studied: Training.
Title: Examination of Washington State's Vehicle Impoundment Law for
Motorcycle Endorsements;
Actual or planned completion: Winter 2013;
Type of strategy studied: Law enforcement related to licensing.
Title: Examine the Puerto Rico .02 BAC for Motorcycle Riders;
Actual or planned completion: Winter 2013[B];
Type of strategy studied: Law enforcement related to alcohol
impairment.
Title: Examination of the Feasibility of Alcohol Interlocks for
Motorcycles;
Actual or planned completion: Fall 2013;
Type of strategy studied: Law enforcement related to alcohol
impairment.
Title: Demonstration to Increase the Number of Properly Endorsed
Motorcyclists (Partnership with Commonwealth of Massachusetts);
Actual or planned completion: Fall 2013;
Type of strategy studied: Licensing.
Title: High Visibility Impaired Riding Crackdown Demonstration in Four
States;
Actual or planned completion: Fall 2013;
Type of strategy studied: Law enforcement related to alcohol
impairment.
Title: Study on Influential Factors for Helmet Usage in States Without
Universal Helmet Laws;
Actual or planned completion: Uncertain[C];
Type of strategy studied: Promotion of voluntary helmet use.
Title: The Effect of Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training on
Motorcycle Crashes;
Actual or planned completion: Spring 2015;
Type of strategy studied: Training.
Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA information,
[A] This study is evaluating the impacts of motorcyclist training over
time to assess its effectiveness.
[B] According to NHTSA officials, this study has been completed ,but
insufficient data were available to draw meaningful conclusions from
the analysis. Consequently, NHTSA does not plan to issue a report.
[C] According to NHTSA officials, the estimated completion date for
this project is uncertain at this time because of the nature of the
project and could range from Spring 2013 through Fall 2015.
[End of table]
This research could increase knowledge about which motorcycle safety
strategies would be effective or promising for states to use. However,
NHTSA has not researched two strategies it has identified as a high
priority or promising. In particular, NHTSA has not researched how to
encourage motorcyclists to increase their conspicuity to motorists.
The agency has identified this strategy as a high priority, based on
its recent assessment of the recommendations of the National Agenda
for Motorcycle Safety. Furthermore, among the high priority National
Agenda for Motorcycle Safety recommendations identified by NHTSA is a
recommendation for the federal government to develop and evaluate a
graduated-licensing model for motorcyclists. Although NHTSA and the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators have developed
such a model,[Footnote 100] an evaluation of the model has not been
performed. As noted previously, NHTSA considers graduated licensing a
promising strategy for improving motorcycle safety.
NHTSA officials pointed out that the agency's highway safety research
budget is limited, and the agency must prioritize its investments in
research. According to NHTSA officials, they have prioritized their
research efforts based on problems identified through crash data and
the factors on which the agency can have the most impact. The
officials explained that they have not studied how to increase
motorcyclists' safety awareness, including encouraging riders to
increase their conspicuity, because experience in other highway safety
areas has shown the effectiveness of public education alone, without
enforcement, to be low.[Footnote 101] Nevertheless, in the report on
its prioritization of the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety
recommendations, the agency reported that efforts to increase
motorcyclist conspicuity could have an impact if they were well-
researched and supported by rider groups.[Footnote 102] NHTSA
officials also explained that they have not evaluated a model
graduated-licensing system for motorcyclists because no states are
currently using the approach the officials have proposed. They noted
that they are considering the possibility of conducting a
demonstration project to evaluate such a model-licensing system, but
would need to identify a state that would be willing to participate.
As previously noted, some states have expressed concerns about gaps in
knowledge regarding the effectiveness of motorcycle safety strategies
and have noted that these gaps make it difficult to decide how to
target constrained resources. While helmet laws have been proved
effective in reducing motorcyclist fatalities and NHTSA's current
research could help to broaden the range of strategies that are shown
to be effective, further research on high priority strategies or
promising strategies that have been proved successful in other highway
safety areas could help states make more informed choices as they make
decisions about what motorcycle safety strategies to pursue.
NHTSA does not have a current comprehensive plan for motorcycle safety
to guide its research efforts in this area. In 2007, DOT issued a plan
to reduce motorcyclist fatalities that identified research NHTSA had
under way as well as research that it planned to conduct in the
future. According to NHTSA officials, the 2007 plan is still relevant
as they are working on items identified in that plan. They do,
however, intend to begin developing a new plan for motorcycle safety
in spring 2013. According to NHTSA officials, this plan will cover a
range of NHTSA initiatives, including research on motorcycle safety
strategies, but NHTSA officials have not yet decided what types of
research to include. Given NHTSA's limited resources for research,
developing and publishing a new plan provides an opportunity for NHTSA
to identify research priorities for motorcycle safety, based on gaps
in knowledge about the effectiveness of motorcycle safety strategies
and the types of strategies that have been identified as high
priorities. NHTSA officials agreed that the new plan provided this
opportunity.
Conclusions:
Motorcycle crashes can result not only in serious injuries or death
but also can impose significant costs that are borne by the victims
and their families as well as by society, including the government,
employers, private insurers, and healthcare providers. While universal
helmet laws are the only strategy proved to be effective in reducing
motorcyclist fatalities, such laws can be controversial and it is
uncertain whether the number of states with such laws, currently 19,
will increase or decrease in the future. It is important that states
approach motorcycle safety in a comprehensive manner, in order to
address the various factors that contribute to crashes as well as
fatalities. By providing states with greater flexibility in how they
can use their Motorcyclist Safety Grants, Congress could increase
states' ability to pursue the combination of strategies states believe
is needed to prevent crashes and reduce fatalities. Furthermore, the
gaps in knowledge about the effectiveness of various types of
strategies other than universal helmet laws impede states' ability to
make informed decisions about what combination of strategies to pursue
with their limited resources. NHTSA has researched a variety of
motorcycle safety strategies. Given its limited funding for research,
however, NHTSA could better fulfill its role as a leader in
identifying strategies states can use to address motorcycle safety by
reexamining its research priorities in light of the factors that
contribute to crashes and fatalities and gaps in knowledge regarding
motorcycle safety strategies. In particular, by focusing on
researching high priority and promising strategies that it has
identified, NHTSA could better assist states in targeting their
resources and prioritizing their efforts to improve motorcycle safety.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
In order to provide states with greater flexibility to pursue a range
of strategies to address the various factors contributing to
motorcycle crashes and fatalities, Congress should consider allowing
states to use the Motorcyclist Safety Grants for purposes beyond
motorcyclist training and raising motorist awareness of motorcycles.
Recommendations:
To provide the states with information that could better enable them
to effectively address the factors that contribute to motorcycle
crashes and fatalities, NHTSA should:
* as part of its expected comprehensive plan for motorcycle safety,
identify research priorities that address these factors as well as
gaps in knowledge about the effectiveness of state strategies,
particularly those that it has identified as a high priority or
promising.
* in addition to setting these research priorities, conduct research
on the following strategies that it has identified as a high priority
or promising:
* encouraging motorcyclists to increase their conspicuity, and:
* implementing a graduated-licensing model for motorcyclists.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. DOT
officials agreed to consider our recommendations and provided
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOT also
noted that, while additional research focus by NHTSA on motorcycle
safety strategies may be useful in the future, state universal helmet
laws are the one strategy that has been proved to be effective in
saving lives, as stated in our report.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.
Susan Fleming Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
This report addresses: 1) what is known about the costs of motorcycle
crashes; 2) the factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes, and to
fatalities when crashes occur, and strategies states are pursuing to
address these factors; and 3) the extent to which NHTSA assists states
in pursuing strategies that address these factors.
To determine what is known about the costs of motorcycle crashes we
reviewed research related to the costs of these crashes, including the
amount and types of costs they impose and who pays them. We included
studies authored or provided to us by federal and state agencies and
independent research organizations that we interviewed and other
relevant studies on this topic published in the last 10 years. In some
cases, we also included studies published more than 10 years ago when
there was limited or no research about that topic in the last 10
years. Because existing estimates were either for vehicles as a whole
or only covered specific types of motorcycle crash costs, we developed
an estimate of the total direct measurable costs specifically for
motorcycle crashes in 2010. To arrive at this estimate, we used data
developed in a 2002 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) study, which provided estimates of direct measurable costs of
all motor vehicle crashes in 2000 for each of nine cost categories
across various levels of crash severity.[Footnote 103] These
categories include medical costs, costs associated with emergency
services, loss in market productivity and household productivity,
insurance administration, legal, travel delay, property damage, and
workplace costs. We reviewed NHTSA's methodology for calculating costs
and decided to use NHTSA's cost estimates for our purposes because
they provide the most detailed estimates of crash costs using the most
comprehensive data and are used by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and others to develop and report on crash costs.
Specifically, to develop our 2010 motorcycle safety cost estimate, we
first updated NHTSA's 2000 cost estimates for all motor vehicles to
2010 values by adjusting for inflation using the Bureau of Labor and
Statistics' consumer price index.[Footnote 104] Subsequently, to
estimate the costs attributable solely to motorcycle crashes, we
applied these updated motor vehicle crash cost estimates to NHTSA's
2010 data on motorcycle crashes. We obtained the number of fatal
motorcycle crashes from NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System
(FARS) dataset and obtained the number of property-damage-only crashes
and other non-fatal crashes from NHTSA's General Estimates System
data.[Footnote 105] To estimate the number of non-fatal crashes by
injury severity, we constructed an injury profile of these non-fatal
crashes based on findings from NHTSA's 2009 report on helmet use and
head and facial injuries;[Footnote 106] the constructed injury profile
from that report contains the proportion of non-fatal crashes in
various injury severity categories for non-fatal crashes, based on the
maximum abbreviated injury scale.[Footnote 107] This allowed us to
estimate the number of non-fatal crashes by level of injury severity
in 2010. The number of fatal motorcycle crashes, property-damage
crashes and non-fatal crashes by injury severity were multiplied by
their specific average per-person costs (in 2010 dollars), and
aggregated to yield the total direct measurable cost of motorcycle
crashes. To check for consistency, we compared various components of
costs that are also covered in other existing estimates identified in
our literature review as these estimates might apply to some specific
costs such as medical costs. We also adjusted for the time periods
under consideration because these existing estimates might be based on
data from time periods different from ours.
Our cost analysis uses the following assumptions and has the following
limitations:
* We assumed that the injury profile of motorcyclists did not change
for non-fatal crashes from the 2003-05 period to 2010.
* We assumed the average severity of a particular injury category
based on the maximum abbreviated injury scale score is the same for
both motorcyclists and other motor vehicle crash victims. However,
motorcycle crash victims often suffer very different injuries from
other motor vehicle crash victims. As a result, the consequence and
treatment costs could vary significantly even if the resulting
injuries had the same score[Footnote 108]
* The abbreviated injury scale scores used in the NHTSA report are not
always accurate predictors of long-term injury outcomes. Some injuries
with low scores, such as lower extremity injuries, can actually result
in serious and expensive long-term outcomes.
- The analysis also implicitly assumes that the distribution of costs
across the category types stayed constant from 2002 to 2010. We thus
assume all cost components grew at the same rate as the general
consumer price index.
- The analysis does not include costs of unreported crashes and
environmental costs, because those data were not available.
- The analysis does not include other difficult to quantify costs such
as longer term costs of treatment and intangible costs associated with
emotional pain and suffering.
To identify the factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes and
fatalities and strategies that states are pursuing to address these
factors, we interviewed NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), CDC, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and key
stakeholder organizations involved in motorcycle safety, including the
Motorcycle Safety Foundation, the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS), the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, Governors Highway Safety Association, the National
Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators, and the
American Motorcyclist Association. Furthermore, we conducted
interviews with and reviewed documentation from the state agencies
that have lead responsibility for motorcycle safety, generally the
Highway Safety Office, in the following 16 states: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi,
Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Utah, Washington
and Wisconsin. We selected states representing a range of fatality
rates, varying types of motorcycle safety laws and policies, varying
levels of ridership, and that are geographically diverse. For five of
these states--Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Texas, and Wisconsin--we
interviewed additional agencies and organizations responsible for
motorcycle safety, including the applicable NHTSA region, state
agencies responsible for motorcycle licensing and training; state and
local law enforcement agencies; and motorcycle advocacy groups.
[Footnote 109]
In addition, we conducted a literature review to obtain information on
the factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes and fatalities as
well as to determine the extent of knowledge about the effectiveness
of motorcycle safety strategies used by states. We identified studies
for our review through a search of numerous bibliographic data bases
(including searched EMBASE, SocialSciSearch, SciSearch, MEDLINE,
ProQuest, Transportation Research International Documentation, BIOSIS,
and National Technical Information Service); interviews with NHTSA,
the FHWA, CDC, NTSB, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and IIHS; and
bibliographic references in NHTSA's Countermeasures that Work report,
as well as other documents reviewed. From this search, we screened the
identified studies for relevance to our report and selected studies
that met the following criteria: (1) conducted in the U.S., (2) peer-
reviewed as well as by or for federal or state agencies, (3) included
an original analysis of data, and (4) published in the last 10 years.
In order to assess the effectiveness of motorcycle helmet laws, we
also considered studies published more than 10 years ago because many
changes in helmet laws occurred and were evaluated more than 10 years
ago. In some cases, for other strategies we also included studies
published more than 10 years ago when there was limited or no research
about that strategy in the last 10 years. In such cases, we considered
the extent to which factors may have changed over time that could
affect the relevance of their findings. In addition, for motorcycle
helmet laws, we limited studies to those including the entire U.S.
population (and met the criteria listed above). This was done in part
to limit the scope to larger studies that provided more power to
detect effects of helmet laws while controlling for other important
factors.
Furthermore, for studies of the factors associated with motorcycle
crashes and fatalities, we restricted our review to studies that
addressed either crashes or fatalities. For studies of the
effectiveness of strategies, we restricted our formal review to
studies that met the following criteria: (1) examined the
effectiveness of motorcycle safety strategies covered in our review;
[Footnote 110] (2) addressed either motorcycle crashes or motorcyclist
fatalities as an outcome; and (3) used an experimental (e.g.,
randomization of individuals or communities to receive the program) or
quasi-experimental design (e.g., statistically controlling for
individual, community, or state exposure to the program policy) to
evaluate the effects of the strategy. Out of the 117 studies we
screened, we identified 20 studies that met these screening criteria,
including 18 studies of motorcycle safety strategies. Each of these
studies was evaluated for relevance and reviewed by social science
specialists to ensure that any findings presented reflected the
methodological approaches and limitations of each study.
Finally, to identify characteristics of crashes we reviewed NHTSA
reports covering calendar years 1991 through 2010 based on their
analyses of data from their FARS database. To identify characteristics
that were not available in NHTSA's published reports (primarily from
2010 FARS data), we analyzed data on vehicle fatalities from FARS and
data on vehicle registrations from the FHWA. We reviewed existing
documentation about the data and interviewed officials knowledgeable
about the data and their limitations in order to assess the extent
which the data are accurate and complete. In addition, we conducted
data comparisons, logic tests, and tests for missing data and errors.
We estimated missing blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test results
using NHTSA's method of multiple imputation.[Footnote 111] We found
FARS data, vehicle registration data, and NHTSA's published reports to
be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
To determine the extent to which NHTSA assists states in pursuing
strategies that address the factors that contribute to motorcycle
crashes and fatalities, we reviewed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users[Footnote 112]
and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act[Footnote
113] and relevant portions of the United States Code to determine
NHTSA's responsibilities and authority related to motorcycle safety.
We also reviewed reports, studies, and other documentation and
interviewed officials in NHTSA headquarters and regional offices to
determine what NHTSA has done to assist states to identify and promote
motorcycle safety strategies for use by states. We also analyzed data
on Motorcyclist Safety Grant funds awarded to states[Footnote 114] and
interviewed state officials from states in our selection to determine
how and the extent to which they have used the Motorcycle Safety and
other grant programs to address motorcycle safety and challenges they
have faced in using the grants. We also reviewed information on
NHTSA's research and development related to motorcycle safety for the
last 5 years to identify the extent to which they addressed factors
that contribute to crashes and fatalities and strategies to address
those factors. In addition, we interviewed the stakeholder groups
cited above and state officials in the 16 states we selected to obtain
their views on NHTSA's efforts. Finally, we reviewed key reports on
motorcycle safety, such as reports by the Transportation Research
Board, and the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and pertinent GAO
reports, as well as NTSB recommendations, in evaluating NHTSA's
efforts. We limited our work to NHTSA's efforts to identify and
promote motorcycle safety strategies for states to use and did not
cover other NHTSA motorcycle safety efforts, such as data collection,
research on vehicle safety, or helmet standards.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 to November 2012
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Susan Fleming, (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Judy Guilliams-Tapia
(Assistant Director), Namita Bhatia-Sabharwal, Leia Dickerson, Sharon
Dyer, Lorraine Ettaro, Lynn Filla-Clark, Bert Japikse, Terence Lam,
Janet Lee, Stephanie Purcell, and Amy Rosewarne made important
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The vast majority of these fatal crashes involved two-wheeled
motorcycles. In addition to two-wheeled motorcycles, the broad
definition of "motorcycles" used here includes mopeds, three-wheel
motorcycles, off-road motorcycles, and other motored-cycles (such as
mini-bikes, motor scooters, and pocket motorcycles).
[2] A direction to perform this work is contained in S. Rept. No. 112-
83, p. 66, 211th Cong. (2011), the conference report that accompanied
the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012. H.R.
Rept No. 112-284, p. 286, 211TH Cong., (2011) directed that our report
be filed with both the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations.
[3] Direct measurable costs are those costs directly resulting from a
crash that can and have been measured.
[4] L. Blincoe et al, The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2000 (Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 2002).
[5] These 16 states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho,
Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. For five of these states-
-Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Texas, and Wisconsin--we interviewed
additional agencies and organizations responsible for motorcycle
safety, including the applicable NHTSA region, state agencies
responsible for motorcycle licensing and training; state and local law
enforcement agencies; and motorcycle advocacy groups. We did not
include states' motorcycle safety efforts related to road
infrastructure or emergency response in our review.
[6] To assess the effectiveness of motorcycle helmet laws, we included
older studies because many changes in helmet laws occurred and were
evaluated more than 10 years ago. In some cases, we also included
studies published more than 10 years ago when there was limited or no
research about that strategy in the last 10 years. In such cases, we
considered the extent to which factors may have changed over time that
could affect the relevance of their findings.
[7] Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).
[8] Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat 405 (2012).
[9] As we discuss in more detail later in this report, helmets and
other protective gear do offer some protection.
[10] U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts: 2010 Data, Motorcycles.
DOT HS 811 639 (Washington, D.C.: 2012).
[11] Fatalities include only traffic fatalities. Passenger vehicle
fatalities include drivers and passengers of passenger vehicles. We
have defined passenger vehicles as passenger cars and light trucks and
vans. Motorcyclist fatalities include drivers and passengers of
motorcycles.
[12] The number of motorcyclist fatalities peaked at 5,312 in 2008,
then decreased to 4,469 in 2009 and rose slightly to 4,502 in 2010.
Based on preliminary data for 2011, the number of motorcyclist
fatalities is expected to remain about the same as in 2010.
[13] 23 U.S.C. § 402(a), as amended by MAP-21, § 31102, 126 Stat., 734-
739.
[14] SAFETEA-LU, § 2010, 119 Stat., 1535, repealed by MAP-21, §
31109(g).
[15] All states have been eligible to receive these grants each year,
except for Alabama and Mississippi (only eligible in 2009), South
Carolina (ineligible in 2006, did not apply in 2007 and 2008, eligible
and received grants in 2009 and 2010), and the District of Columbia
(has never applied).
[16] See 23 U.S.C. § 402, discussed above.
[17] MAP-21, § 31105, 126 Stat., 741-755, codified as positive law at
23 U.S.C. § 405(a)(1)(E). The terms and requirements for motorcyclist
safety grants under 23 U.S.C. § 405 are substantially similar to those
under SAFETEA-LU § 2010. NHTSA classified motorcycle safety as a
National Priority Program Area under 23 C.F.R. § 1205.3 for purposes
of administering the highway safety grant program under 23 U.S.C. §
402(c), and reflecting the role of § 402 as a second source of funding
for motorcycle safety programs. See, also, 23 C.F.R. § 1205.4.
[18] MAP-21, § 31101(a)(3), 126, Stat. 732-733.
[19] Naumann RB, Dellinger AM, Zaloshnja E, Lawrence BA, and Miller
TR, "Incidence and total lifetime costs of motor vehicle-related fatal
and nonfatal injury by road user type, United States, 2005," Traffic
Injury Prevention, vol. 11, no.4 (2010).
[20] L. Blincoe et al, The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes
(Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, 2002). NHTSA estimated the costs of all
motor vehicle crashes--not just those involving motorcycles--to be
$230 billion in 2000 (or $280 billion in 2010 dollars).
[21] Various factors account for differences between our cost estimate
of $16 billion and the previous estimate produced by CDC and the
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation of $12 billion. Our
estimate covers the nine types of direct measurable costs developed in
the 2002 NHTSA study, whereas CDC and the Pacific Institute for
Research and Evaluation estimate covers only three types of costs, as
noted above. Given that medical and productivity costs constitute
almost 80 percent of all costs (see figure 1), our estimate is very
similar to theirs as 80 percent of $16 billion is about $12 billion.
Furthermore, CDC's estimate accounted for unreported crashes whereas
ours did not, and its estimate was in 2005 dollars and ours is in 2010
dollars. Accounting for all of these differences, the two estimates
are somewhat consistent.
[22] NHTSA's current effort to update its crash cost estimates will
provide a more accurate estimate of motorcycle crash costs and will
consider various environmental costs, such as congestion costs. NHTSA
plans to issue its report in spring 2013.
[23] This represents lifetime costs associated with a crash. However,
this might be an underestimate for very serious injuries as
calculations of long-term medical costs rely on follow-up analyses of
these costs for only 2 to 3 years post-injury.
[24] Ted Miller et al, Rehabilitation Costs and Long-Term Consequences
of Motor Vehicle Injury (Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, 2006). A total of
237 motorcycle crash victims were surveyed. Length of stay in
inpatient rehabilitation ranged from 10 to 71 days.
[25] Lawrence J. Cook et al, Motorcycle Helmet Use and Head and Facial
Injuries, Crash Outcomes in CODES-Linked Data, DOT HS 811 2008
(Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
2008). Moderate to critical injuries are injuries that fall in the
maximum abbreviated injury scale categories 2 to 5, and these
proportions were calculated from a NHTSA 2008 study, which evaluated
combined data from 18 states on 89,086 motorcycle crashes and 104,472
motorcyclists between 2003 and 2005.
[26] Data on all motorists is for the year 2000.
[27] Ted Miller et al, Cost of Crashes to Government, United States,
2008. (Washington, D.C.: Pacific Institute for Research and
Evaluation, 2008). For different severity of injuries, total
government cost on average ranged from $5,200 to $30,000 for
motorcycle crashes and from $3,500 to $21,000 for all motor vehicle
crashes. For fatalities, the cost was the same for motorcycles and all
motor vehicles. For the no-injury category, the cost was higher for
all motor vehicles than for motorcycles.
[28] The study analyzed data collected from insurance companies that
specialize in motorcycle insurance and the nation's five largest motor
vehicle insurers. See Ted R. Miller and Bruce A. Lawrence., Motor
Vehicle Insurance in the United States: A 1998-1999 Snapshot with
Emphasis on Motorcycle Coverage, Final Report to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (Washington, D.C.: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 2003).
[29] Robert O. Bernstein, California Uninsured Vehicles as of June 1,
1997, Policy Research Bureau, California Department of Insurance
(1999).
[30] Ted Miller et al, Rehabilitation Costs and Long-Term Consequences
of Motor Vehicle Injury.(Washington, D.C.:NHTSA, 2006).
[31] Frederick P. Rivara et al, "The Public Cost of Motorcycle
Trauma," Journal of the American Medical Association, voI. 260. no. 2
(1988).
[32] While these factors affect the likelihood that an individual will
experience a crash, exposure--the time and miles motorcycles are
driven on the road and the number of motorcycles on the road--affects
the overall number of crashes and fatalities in each state. Weather
and the length of the riding season, which vary from state to state,
influence the amount of time motorcyclists spend riding.
[33] These factors were also identified in the following reports on
motorcycle safety issues and strategies: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety
Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices. Sixth Edition.
DOT HS 811 444. (Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, 2011); Motorcycle Safety
Foundation and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (Washington, DC.: NHTSA, 2000);
Transportation Research Board/National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO
Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Volume 22: A Guide for Addressing
Collisions Involving Motorcycles. (Washington, D.C.: Transportation
Research Board, 2008); Governors Highway Safety Association, by State:
2011 Preliminary Data. (Washington, D.C.: Governors Highway Safety
Association, 2012). Some of these reports identify additional factors.
In particular, the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety identified a
range of human, social, vehicle, and environmental factors affecting
the likelihood of crashes and the severity of crash outcomes.
[34] Estimates of the percentage of drivers with BAC levels greater
than 0.08 grams per deciliter with their 95 percent confidence
intervals (CI) are for motorcycle drivers 27.8 percent (95 percent CI
of 26.1 percent to 29.4 percent) and for drivers of passenger
vehicles, 22.8 percent (95 percent CI of 22.3 percent to 23.4
percent). See appendix I for more information about these estimates.
[35] Carley Sauter et al, "Increased Risk of Death or Disability in
Unhelmeted Wisconsin Motorcyclists," Wisconsin Medical Journal, Vol.
104 , No. 2 (2005), pp. 39-44. Timothy Pickrell and Marc Starnes, An
Analysis of Motorcycle Helmet Use in Fatal Crashes, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (Washington, D.C. 2008). Thomas S. Dee,
"Motorcycle helmets and traffic safety," Journal of Health Economics,
vol. 28 (2009), pp. 398-412.
[36] Creaser, J. I. et al. Effects of Alcohol on Motorcycle Riding
Skills. (Washington, D.C., NHTSA, 2007).
[37] A 2007 survey of alcohol and drug use by drivers found about
twice the prevalence of drug use by motorcyclists as passenger vehicle
drivers. See John H. Lacey et al, A 2007 National Roadside Survey of
Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers, Drug Results (Washington, D.C.:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009).
[38] Supersport motorcycles are built on a racing bike frame and can
reach speeds of nearly 190 miles per hour.
[39] For further information on this issue and approaches used by
state governments to deal with it, see Richard Schaffer et al, Scan 09-
04, Leading Practices for Motorcyclist Safety (NCHRP Project 20 68A)
(Washington, D.C.: National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
2011).
[40] Williams Deutermann, Motorcycle Helmet Effectiveness Revisited,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Washington, D.C.:
2004). Thomas S. Dee, "Motorcycle helmets and traffic safety" Journal
of Health Economics, vol. 28 (2009), pp. 398-412. Daniel C. Norvell
and Peter Cummings, "Association of Helmet Use with Death in
Motorcycle Crashes: A Matched-Pair Cohort Study," American Journal of
Epidemiology, Vol. 156 (2002), No. 5, pp. 483-48.
[41] NHTSA, Countermeasures That Work, 2011.
[42] CDC has reported that, in 2010, approximately $3 billion in costs
were saved as a result of helmet use in the U.S. and another $1.4
billion could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.
See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Helmet Use Among
Motorcyclists Who Died in Crashes and Economic Cost Savings Associated
With State Motorcycle Helmet Laws--United States, 2008-2010,"
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 61 No. 23 (2012), pp. 425-
430.
[43] Approved helmets must meet the DOT's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 218 which requires that helmets provide minimum levels of
performance to protect the head and brain in the event of a crash.
[44] Road rash injuries, or road burn injuries, are painful scrapes
and bruises that occur when motorcyclists are thrown or dragged by
their motorcycles.
[45] These include a crash causation study sponsored by FHWA, NHTSA,
and the American Motorcyclist Association and two naturalistic studies
of motorcyclists, one sponsored by NHTSA and one sponsored by the
Motorcycle Safety Foundation. The crash causation study will
investigate at least 280 crashes to determine causes and rider
characteristics. The naturalistic studies will track a total of 260
motorcyclists, using equipment attached to their motorcycles that will
acquire a broad range of data on routine riding behavior, as well as
crashes and near-crash events. According to NHTSA officials, the
results of these studies will become available in several years.
[46] NHTSA, Countermeasures That Work, 2011.
[47] Information on licensing requirements for the 16 states in our
review is based on documentation on these states' programs and
interviews with state officials.
[48] By engine size, we mean the engine capacity in cubic centimeters.
Licenses are granted for motorcycles with an engine size of 90 cc or
less, 249 cc or less, and 649 cc or less. Riders who pass the test on
a motorcycle that is 650 cc or larger are not restricted.
[49] The Motorcycle Safety Foundation is an internationally recognized
not-for-profit foundation, supported by motorcycle manufacturers, that
provides leadership to the motorcycle safety community through its
expertise, tools, and partnerships.
[50] At a sobriety checkpoint, law enforcement officers stop vehicles
at a predetermined location to check whether the driver is impaired.
According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, in 12 states
sobriety checkpoints are not conducted because they are prohibited by
law or the state lacks authority to conduct them.
[51] Promotion of helmet use is also intended to increase motorcyclist
safety awareness. We will discuss this strategy below.
[52] In Florida, motorcyclists over the age of 21 can choose not to
wear a helmet if they carry $10,000 in medical insurance coverage.
Riders in Michigan who are over the age of 21 and have less than 2
years of experience or have passed a motorcycle safety course are not
required to wear a helmet as long as they also have at least $20,000
in medical insurance coverage per person including any rider.
[53] From 1992 to 1995, as part of an incentive package for states to
pass laws requiring all riders to wear helmets, the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-240, § 1031,
105 Stat. 1914, 1970, added 23 U.S.C. § 153 to require states to pass
such laws or lose funds for highway construction. The helmet law
requirement was repealed in 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-59, § 205(e), 109
Stat. 568, 577) which was followed by repeal of helmet laws in a
number of states.
[54] Rebecca Naumann and Ruth A. Shults, Ph.D, " Helmet Use Among
Motorcylists Who Died in Crashes and Economic Cost Savings Associated
With State Motorcycle Helmet Laws--Unite States, 2008-2010," Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report, Division of Unintentional Injury
Prevention, National Center for Injury and Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 15, 2012.
[55] The National Occupant Protection Use Survey is the only survey
that provides probability-based data on helmet use by motorcycle
drivers and passengers in the U.S. and is conducted annually by
NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis. The survey
observes helmet use as it actually occurs at randomly selected roadway
sites. See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic
Safety Facts: Motorcycle Helmet Use in 2011--Overall Results
(Washington, D.C.: 2012).
[56] The use of checkpoints is controversial. Officials in some states
told us that they are prohibited from using checkpoints to enforce
motorcycle laws.
[57] NHTSA and the Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies have also reported on limitations of existing research on
motorcycle safety strategies. See National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Countermeasures That Work, (2011) and David F.
Preusser, Allan F. Williams, James L. Nichols, Julie Tison, and Neil
K. Chaudhary, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Report 622: Effectiveness of
Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures, (Washington, D.C.:
Transportation Research Board, 2008).
[58] We included studies that (1) were conducted in the U.S., (2) were
peer-reviewed or prepared by or for federal or state agencies, (3)
included an original analysis of data, using an experimental or quasi-
experimental design, (4) addressed either motorcycle crashes or
motorcycle fatalities as an outcome, and (5) were published in the
last 10 years. In some cases, older studies were included if more
recent studies of a particular strategy were not available. We did not
include strategies related to road infrastructure, emergency response,
or vehicle safety. For further details on our methodology, see
appendix I.
[59] Braver et al, "Persuasion and licensure: A randomized controlled
intervention trial to increase licensure rates among Maryland
motorcycle owners," Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2007,
pp. 39-46; Braver et al, Understanding and Addressing the Problem of
Unlicensed Motorcycle Operators in Maryland (2007): and Limrick and
Masten, Preliminary Evaluation of a Pilot Program to Increase
Licensure Among Improperly Licensed California Motorcycle Drivers,
(October 2011).
[60] Limrick and Masten, Preliminary Evaluation, 2011.
[61] G. McGwin, J. Whatley, J. Metzger, F. Valent, F. Barbone, L.W.
Rue. "The effect of state motorcycle licensing laws on motorcycle
driver mortality rates," Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and
Critical Care, Vol. 56, No. 2, Feb. 2004, pp. 415-419.
[62] See NHTSA, Countermeasures That Work, 2011.
[63] See NHTSA, Countermeasures That Work, 2011. We have also reported
that research has shown graduated licensing systems to be associated
with improved teen driver safety. See GAO, Teen Driver Safety:
Additional Research Could Help States Strengthen Graduated Driver
Licensing Systems, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-544]
(Washington, D.C: May 27, 2010).
[64] See M.T. French, G. Gumus, and J.F. Homer, Public policies and
motorcycle safety. Journal of Health Economics, 28(2009) 831-838. Non-
fatal injury data in this study are not available for all years from
all states and are from different sources across states, and thus,
results may be biased to the extent that the effect of these factors
on measurement of injury rates is systematically correlated with
policy changes over time.
[65] P. Savolainen and F. Mannering, "Effectiveness of Motorcycle
Training and Motorcyclists' Risk-Taking Behavior," Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
2031, (Washington, D.C., 2007), pp. 52-58. The study found that
beginning motorcyclists who took a basic training course were more
likely to be involved in a motorcycle crash than those who did not
take the course. The authors offered possible explanations including
that riders who take the course might be less skilled than those who
do not, or their risk perception might change from taking the course,
or that the course might be ineffective.
[66] J.W. Billheimer," Evaluation of California Motorcyclist Safety
Program," Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, vol. 1640, Transportation Research
Board (1998), pp. 100-109. The study found no significant differences
in crash rates between trained and untrained riders 6 months, 1 year,
and 2 years after training.
[67] See, for example, A. Daniello, H.C. Gable, and U.A. Mehta,
"Effectiveness of Motorcycle Training and Licensing," Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol.
2140 (2009), 206-213; and J. Brock, A. Robinson, B. Robinson, and J.
Percer, "Approaches to the Assessment of Entry-Level Motorcycle
Training: An Expert Panel Discussion," Traffic Safety Facts. DOT HS
811 242.
[68] For example, evaluations have 1) not accounted for important
differences between individuals who take motorcycle training and those
who do not, 2) not accounted for other factors that may have affected
crash rates, and 3) relied on self-reported data.
[69] We have previously reported that research on driver education has
produced mixed results regarding its effectiveness in reducing
crashes. See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-544].
[70] Specifically, according to NHTSA, summary reviews of research
conclude that red-light cameras reduce side-impact crashes and overall
crash severity, but increase rear-end crashes. The reduction of side-
impact crashes (the target group of crashes and of higher severity)
are slightly offset by increases in rear-end crashes (which are
generally of lower severity), thus, red-light cameras were found to be
more effective at intersections with a higher ratio of side-impact to
rear-end crashes. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Countermeasures That Work, 2011.
[71] Villaveces et al, "Association of alcohol-related laws with
deaths due to motor vehicle and motorcycle crashes in the United
States, 1980-1997," American Journal of Epidemiology, 2003: French et
al, "Public policies and motorcycle safety," Journal of Health
Economics, 2009; Houston and Richardson, "Motorcyclist fatality rates
and mandatory helmet-use laws," Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2008;
Houston and Richardson. "Motorcycle safety and the repeal of universal
helmet laws," American Journal of Public Health, 2007; and Houston;
"Are helmet laws protecting young motorcyclists?" Journal of Safety
Research, 2007. The latter three studies by Houston use the same data
over the same time period to examine the effect of universal helmet
laws and other state policies on motorcyclist fatalities. These
studies vary only in the type of analyses carried out, and in one
case, the population examined (i.e., motorcyclists 15 to 20 years of
age).
[72] Villaveces et al, "Association of alcohol-related laws", 2003.
[73] Houston and Richardson, "Are helmet laws protecting," 2008.
[74] French et al, "Public policies," 2009.
[75] See GAO, Traffic Safety: Improved Reporting and Performance
Measures Would Enhance Evaluation of High-Visibility Campaigns,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-477] (Washington, D.C:
Apr. 25, 2008).
[76] In 2011, NHTSA did sponsor several studies on the effect of
daytime running lights on motorcycle conspicuity. See, for example,
James Jenness et al, Motorcycle Conspicuity and the Effect of
Auxiliary Forward Lighting, NHTSA (Washington, D.C.: 2011). However,
since these studies dealt with enhancements to vehicles to improve
safety, they were outside of our scope.
[77] M.T. French, G. Gumus, J.F. Homer, "Public policies and
motorcycle safety," Journal of Health Economics. 28(2009); D.J.
Houston and L.E. Richardson. "Motorcycle Safety and the Repeal of
Universal Helmet Laws," American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 97,
No.11. 2007; D.J. Houston. "Are helmet laws protecting young
motorcyclists?" Journal of Safety Research. 38(2007); T.M. Pickrell
and M. Starnes. "An Analysis of Motorcycle Helmet Use in Fatal
Crashes," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Technical
Report. DOT HS 811 011. (August 2008); C.C. Morris. "Generalized
linear regression analysis of association of universal helmet laws
with motorcyclist fatality rates," Accident Analysis and
Prevention.38(2006); G. McGwin, et al, "The Effect of State Motorcycle
Licensing Laws on Motorcycle Driver Mortality Rates," The Journal of
Trauma Injury, Infection, and Critical Care. 56(2004); A. Villaveces
et al, 2003: D.J. Houston and L.E. Richardson, "Motorcyclist fatality
rates and mandatory helmet-use laws," Accident Analysis and
Prevention. 40(2008); and T.S. Dee, "Motorcycle helmets and traffic
safety," Journal of Health Economics. 28(2009) 398-412.
[78] D.J. Houston and L.E. Richardson, "Motorcyclist fatality rates
and mandatory helmet-use laws," Accident Analysis and Prevention. 40
(2008).
[79] T.S. Dee, "Motorcycle helmets and traffic safety," Journal of
Health Economics. 28 (2009) 398-412.
[80] See, in particular, Motorcycle Safety Foundation and National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Agenda for Motorcycle
Safety (2000); Transportation Research Board/National Cooperative
Highway Research Program, NCHRP Report 500: Volume 22: A Guide for
Addressing Collisions Involving Motorcycles (2008); U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs: Highway Safety
Program Guideline No. 3-Motorcycle Safety. Washington, D.C. (2006).
[81] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Countermeasures
that Work, 2011.
[82] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Uniform
Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs: Highway Safety Program
Guideline No. 3-Motorcycle Safety (2006).
[83] Since 2006, 15 states have had these assessments conducted.
[84] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, A Guideline
Document for Motor Vehicle Administrators On Motorcycle Operator
Licensing (2009).
[85] Transportation Research Board/National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (2000).
[86] The other recommendations were made to national agencies, such as
NHTSA, and organizations. These recommendations addressed research,
program evaluation, data collection, regulation, motorcycle design and
manufacture, and motorcycle operator insurance.
[87] U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. DOT HS 810 680. Implementation Guide: National
Agenda for Motorcycle Safety. Washington, D.C (2006).
[88] The 10 recommendations, in order of priority, are to 1) use
effective strategies to increase use of DOT-compliant helmets; 2)
educate police and judges on motorcycle safety issues; 3) educate
police on alcohol-related behavior of motorcyclists; 4) discourage
mixing alcohol or other drugs with motorcycling; 5) provide training
to all who need or seek it; 6) provide additional education/training
on proper braking techniques; 7) merge rider education/training and
licensing into one-stop operations; 8) encourage states to issue
motorcycle endorsements immediately upon course completion; 9)
encourage motorcyclists to increase conspicuity; and 10) communicate
helmet use benefits and work toward greater voluntary use of DOT-
compliant helmets.
[89] DOT, like all federal agencies, is prohibited from lobbying using
appropriated funds without express congressional authorization. In
addition, under 23 U.S.C. § 402(c), no state highway safety program
may be approved by the Secretary if it requires the state to adopt or
enforce adult safety helmet requirements.
[90] Originally, $25 million was authorized under SAFETEA-LU through
fiscal year 2009. MAP-21 eliminated individual safety grant programs,
including motorcycle safety, and incorporated them together under an
overall highway safety program, as National Priority Safety Grants, at
23 U.S.C. § 405. Section 405 provides for a series of grants that are
similar to other preexisting individual grant programs. The amounts an
individual state received under SAFETEA-LU and that they will receive
under MAP-21 are determined by formula and cannot exceed 25 percent of
the amount a state receives under the State and Community Highway
Safety grant program.
[91] See 23 U.S.C. § 402, discussed in footnote 13.
[92] States have also used other NHTSA grant programs for motorcycle
safety, such as the Safety Belt Grant Program and the Impaired Driving
Program, but to a lesser extent. Based on NHTSA's funding data, states
used about $800,000 of the safety belt grant funds on motorcycle
safety from fiscal years 2006 to 2011. States with a primary safety
belt law received this funding, which could be used for any other
highway safety effort, including motorcycle safety. NHTSA's grant
system does not track how states spend Impaired Driving Program
funding but, according to NHTSA officials, the amounts used for
motorcycle safety are likely even smaller. Under MAP-21, states may
also continue to use certain non-motorcycle grant funds for motorcycle
safety.
[93] GAO, Traffic Safety: Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues,
Despite State Eligibility and Management Difficulties, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-398] (Washington, D.C.: March 2008).
[94] GAO, Traffic Safety Programs: Progress, States' Challenges, and
Issues for Reauthorization, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-990T] (Washington, D.C.: July 16,
2008).
[95] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Uniform
Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs: Highway Safety Program
Guideline No. 3-Motorcycle Safety (2006); and National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Countermeasures That Work, 2011; Transportation
Research Board/National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP
Report 500: Volume 22: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving
Motorcycles (2008).
[96] National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB Most Wanted List:
Critical Changes Needed to Save Lives (2011); U. S Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Motorcycle Safety, How to
Save Lives and Save Money, (Atlanta, GA). CDC's report emphasizes
universal helmet laws as the only approach proven to be effective in
reducing motorcycle fatalities.
[97] The types of motorcyclist outreach efforts envisioned by state
officials included those emphasizing the importance of riding
unimpaired and of wearing safety gear and conspicuous clothing,
accomplished through various mechanisms such as conferences, bumper
stickers, or public service announcements.
[98] These funds came out of NHTSA's behavioral safety research
budget, which totaled $9.9 million in fiscal year 2012.
[99] NHTSA also funded several studies on the effects of daytime
running lights (on both motorcycles and motor vehicles) on motorcycle
conspicuity. These focused on vehicle-based strategies rather than
strategies that could be implemented by states.
[100] See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, A Guideline
Document for Motor Vehicle Administrators On Motorcycle Operator
Licensing, 2009.
[101] Officials also explained that NHTSA has not researched motorist
awareness strategies for similar reasons.
[102] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Prioritize
Recommendations of the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety, Final
Report (2010). NHTSA determined the potential impact of motorist
awareness campaigns in addressing the problem of multi-vehicle
motorcycle crashes to be lower than that of increasing motorcyclist
conspicuity, noting that such campaigns share many characteristics of
traffic safety communications campaigns that have been found to be
ineffective. In particular, they promote a passive message ("be
aware") rather than focus on changing behaviors.
[103] L. Blincoe et al, The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
2000 (Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 2002).
[104] This estimate inflates the medical costs estimated in the 2002
study by the general consumer price index rather than the one for
medical costs. According to researchers in NHTSA and the Pacific
Institute for Research and Evaluation who have conducted analyses of
crash costs, even though the medical costs in general have risen
faster than the consumer price index, due to both improvements in
injury management and data collection, the medical costs for crashes
have likely not risen as fast as the economy-wide rise in medical
costs. Therefore, for our primary analysis, we use the general
consumer price index to adjust the 2000 costs estimates to 2010
levels. However, one researcher told us that the same dollar figure
used in 2000 may be the best representation of medical costs for these
crashes today--that is, without any adjustment for inflation.
[105] NHTSA's General Estimates System is part of its National
Automotive Sampling System database. The data comes from a nationally
representative sample of police-reported motor vehicle crashes of all
types, from minor to fatal.
[106] NHTSA (2009), Motorcycle Helmet Use and Head and Facial
Injuries: Crash Outcomes in CODES-Linked Data. The report evaluated
combined data from 18 states on 89,086 motorcycle crashes and 104,472
motorcyclists between 2003 and 2005.
[107] The maximum abbreviated injury score represents the maximum
injury severity level experienced by the victim and ranges from 0, for
no injury, to 5, for critical injury.
[108] For example, a motorcycle crash victim may suffer a brain
injury, and a motor vehicle crash victim may suffer a back injury.
While both victims' injuries might have the same injury severity score
and the same assumed severity, in reality, the medical costs of
treating a brain injury could be higher than treating a back injury of
similar severity. As a result, our estimates of the total costs of
motorcycle crashes would underestimate the true direct measurable
costs.
[109] We did not include states' motorcycle safety efforts related to
road infrastructure or emergency response in our review. Also, we were
unable to schedule an interview with an advocacy group in Maryland and
law enforcement officials in Texas and Florida.
[110] We covered the following strategies in our review: licensing,
training, enforcement of alcohol impairment and speeding laws, efforts
to increase motorcyclist safety awareness, efforts to increase
motorist awareness of motorcyclists, helmet laws, enforcement of use
of DOT-compliant helmets, and promotion of helmet use. These
strategies are generally aimed at changing the behavior of
motorcyclists and motorists. We did not include strategies related to
road infrastructure, emergency response, or vehicle safety.
[111] When the alcohol test results are unknown, BAC values have been
assigned to drivers and non-occupants involved in fatal crashes, using
NHTSA's method of multiple imputation that was revised in 2002 (NHTSA
Technical Report DOT HS 809 403, Transitioning to Multiple Imputation:
A New Method to Estimate Missing Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC)
Values in FARS.)
[112] Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).
[113] Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat 405 (2012).
[114] SAFETEA-LU established a Motorcyclist Safety grant program, also
known as the Section 2010 grant program. MAP-21 eliminated individual
safety grant programs, including Section 2010, but established a
National Priority Safety Program, which among other things includes
provisions for motorcycle safety grants.
[End of section]
GAO’s Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations,
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy,
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports,
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select
“E-mail Updates.”
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
Connect with GAO:
Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm];
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov;
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470.
Congressional Relations:
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548.
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548.
[End of document]